Strategies for Dissenting Scientists
Submitted by tadas on Wed, 11/03/2004 - 13:30.
by Brian Martin, email: brian_martin@uow.edu.au
Published in Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1998, pp. 605-616.
Go to:
Abstract
Those who challenge conventional
views or vested interests in science are likely to encounter difficulties. A
scientific dissenter should first of all realize that science is a system of
power as well as knowledge, in which interest groups play a key role and
insiders have an extra advantage. Dissenters are likely to be ignored or
dismissed. If they gain some recognition or outside support, they may be
attacked. In the face of such obstacles, there are several strategies, including
mimicking science, aiming at lower status outlets, enlisting patrons, seeking a
different audience, exposing suppression of dissent, and building a social
movement.
Keywords dissent;
whistleblowing
Acknowledgments I
thank Don Eldridge and David Hess for helpful comments on a draft.
Introduction
Science is normally presented to the
public as an enterprise based on skepticism and openness to new ideas, in which
evidence and argumentation are examined on their own merits. Trusting newcomers
who present views that conflict with standard ideas may thus expect that their
work will be given a prompt, fair, and incisive analysis, being accepted if it
passes scrutiny and being given detailed reasons if not. When, instead, their
work is ignored, ridiculed, or rejected without explanation, they assume that
there has been some sort of mistake, and often begin a search to find the "right
person" &endash; someone who fits the stereotype of the open-minded
scientist. This can be a long search!
Certain sorts of innovation are
welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not
threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation,
science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome.
They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked. To have their ideas examined
fairly, it is wishful thinking to rely on the normal operation of the scientific
reception system. To have a decent chance, dissenters need to develop a strategy.
They need to understand the way science actually operates, to work out their
goals, and then to formulate a plan to move towards those goals, taking into
account likely obstacles and sources of support. The following sections cover,
in turn, the dynamics of the scientific community, the problems faced by
challengers, likely responses to dissenters, and strategies.
My perspective on dissent in science
&endash; which in a single article can only be outlined rather than fully
justified &endash; is based on many years’ experience as a scientist and
social scientist both in presenting dissenting ideas as well as studying their
reception. This includes debates over supersonic transport aircraft, nuclear
power, fluoridation, nuclear winter, pesticides, and the origin of AIDS, with a
special focus on the treatment of dissenters (e.g. Martin, 1979, 1981, 1986,
1991, 1996, 1997; Martin et al., 1986). Having given advice to many challengers,
it is my perception that there is a great need to better understand the role of
power in science, to be aware of the likely responses to dissenters, and to
consciously examine and try out strategies.
The Dynamics of the Scientific Community
There are various ways to understand
the way the scientific community operates, including as a search for truth, a
puzzle-solving enterprise within paradigms (Kuhn, 1970), and a social enterprise
in which scientists seek to enroll others, both humans and objects, to their own
cause (Latour, 1987). To understand the response to dissenters, though, it is
more useful to think of the scientific community in terms of "interests"
(Barnes, 1977). Company owners have an interest in making a profit and
scientists have an interest in publishing their papers and being recognized.
"Interests" can be thought of in terms of a stake in money, power,
status, privilege, or other advantages.
To talk of interests is to focus on
the social organization of science. Often, when thinking about "science,"
people think of scientific knowledge, which is conceived of as some sort of
essence above and beyond human interests. It is useful to remember that
scientific knowledge is created by humans and, as a result, is inevitably shaped
by human concerns (Watson, 1938). By understanding the social dynamics of the
scientific community, it is possible to gain insight into processes that
influence the direction, pace, and content of scientific knowledge. The study of
the scientific community then leads back to interests.
Some types of interests are
corporate, government, bureaucratic, professional, career, and psychological. In
each case they can exert strong pressures on the direction of research and shape
the response to challengers. Note that interests influence science without the
necessity of conscious bias, since people’s world views are shaped by
interests.
Corporations fund a large amount of
research, naturally enough the sorts of research that are likely to lead to
corporate advantage. A large corporation can be considered to have a "vested
interest" in certain types of research and certain results, because it has
used these to build a position of power which it wishes to maintain. A
pharmaceutical company, for example, has a strong interest in its best-selling
drugs. It will fund research into drugs that it can patent and sell, but not
into nonpatentable substances. It has an interest in opposing treatments that do
not rely on drugs at all (Abraham, 1995).
Governments are much like large
corporations, funding research that serves their interests. The military, a key
part of the governmental apparatus, funds lots of research into weapons but very
little into methods of nonviolent struggle such as strikes, boycotts, rallies,
and noncooperation. The influence of governments and corporations on the
direction and content of scientific research is considerable (Boffey, 1975;
Dickson, 1984; Primack & von Hippel, 1974).
Governments, corporations and other
large organizations are typically structured as bureaucracies, with a hierarchy
and division of labour. Bureaucratic elites resist challenges to their power and
privilege even when changes would benefit the organization as a whole. For
example, military innovations such as accurate naval gunnery and the machine gun
were resisted by military commanders for decades because they upset normal
organizational arrangements. Scientific research in corporations, governments,
and universities is organized bureaucratically, to some extent. Top scientific
administrators have a vested interest in maintaining their power (Blissett,
1972; Elias, Martins, & Whitley, 1982; Rahman, 1972).
Professions such as medicine and law
can be understood as systems for maintaining control over an occupation, which
includes controlling working conditions and entry to the field. Professions have
a vested interest in this control, which sometimes is protected by laws
preventing nonprofessionals from practicing (Collins, 1979; Larson, 1977).
Individual scientists have interests
in their own careers, for example in publishing papers, gaining jobs and
promotions, and winning honors. They can also develop a psychological interest
in particular theories and methods. If a challenger comes along with a simple
alternative to the theory on which they have built their careers, most
scientists are not likely to be receptive, since their status will be undermined
and their lifelong commitment apparently wasted (Mitroff, 1974).
These different interests are often
interconnected. Governments fund research by corporations and universities.
Corporations fund research by medical professionals. Individual scientists build
up careers in government or corporate labs.
The interests model of science is
quite a contrast to the traditional model of a search for truth which is guided
by norms such as skepticism, universality, and communality. The usefulness of
these norms for describing science has been questioned (Mulkay, 1976). Indeed,
science is possibly just as well described by "counternorms" such as
emotional commitment and organized dogmatism (Mitroff, 1974). Using the
interests model, we would expect the scientific community to respond to the most
salient interests.
For example, because certain
chemical companies make a lot of money selling pesticides, they heavily fund
research into pesticides, do not fund much research into alternatives to
pesticides, and are threatened by adverse findings about pesticides. Just as
important as these direct links between interests and research are indirect
influences. Priorities for seemingly independent fields can be influenced by
chemical company interests.
Another important interest is that
of the scientific community as a whole in the status of science as a superior
method of gaining knowledge. Scientific experts are given greater credibility
because they are seen as having special access to truth about the world.
Scientific truths are not supposed to be tainted by interests, which is why
scientific knowledge is portrayed as rising above the limitations of the system
that created it.
Interests are an influence on the
way science proceeds, but do not determine it. There is always some scope for
resistance.
Incidentally, within the social
studies of science, analysis of interests has become quite unfashionable.
Perhaps this is related to the field becoming more career oriented and hence
less helpful to those wanting to expose vested interests!
Problems Faced by Challengers
If there are strong interests behind
a particular position or theory, then the task of challengers is difficult. This
difficulty is aggravated if challengers are outsiders who don’t "play the
game." If you are a talented scientist with a good track record, working at
an elite institution, and write a conventional looking scientific paper &endash;
but with challenging ideas &endash; there may be difficulties enough. For
anyone else, it is much tougher.
If you are from a low status
institution, that is a big disadvantage (Peters & Ceci, 1982). It is even
worse to have no institution at all and to write from a home address. It is also
a disadvantage to be unknown in the field, to have no prior publications, to be
a female, to be too young or too old, or to be from a country with low
scientific status.
Although the rhetoric about science
is that it is ideas that count, not who expresses them, in practice ideas are
commonly judged by their source. Ideas are given much more credibility if they
come from a respected source. Outsiders have an uphill battle.
Just as important is presenting
one’s ideas in the expected way. A paper, to be recognized as scientific, must
conform to the standard mold. This varies from field to field, but usually means
a restrained, impersonal style, suitable references to earlier work, and use of
jargon appropriate to the topic, all in a concise package that is similar to
other writings in the field. Anyone who writes about their own personal
discovery, not mentioning prior work, and writes for a general audience, has
little chance of being published in a scientific journal even if the ideas are
conventional and would be publishable if in standard form. Outsiders sometimes
betray their ignorance of the usual style by using ALL CAPITALS and making bold
claims.
Once again, rhetoric about science
might suggest that contributions should be judged on their content rather than
their appearance, but the reality is otherwise. Learning the standard style
usually occurs during the conventional career route involving years of formal
study and apprenticeship, plus working in a speciality to become familiar with
prior work. Indeed, without being an active player in the field, it may be
impossible to keep up, since this requires having access to the latest preprints,
attending major conferences, or knowing key people. Furthermore, without coming
through conventional channels, it is often impossible to gain access to
equipment needed to do the most advanced work in the field.
Arguably, one reason that science is
so successful is that it is a very conservative and insular operation. By
concentrating enormous resources on solving the puzzles that are on the
immediate frontier, scientists are able to make steady advances and occasional
breakthroughs. (Because of the role of funding and paradigms, this tends to be
in areas that are useful to powerful interests.) The cost of this focus on
current puzzles is a neglect of foundational questions, anomalies, and
unconventional ideas.
Typical working scientists have a
hard time keeping up with conventional research in their speciality. There are
experiments to be done, grant applications to write, papers to be written,
seminars and conferences to attend, and perhaps teaching. Research is very
competitive. Delay may mean losing out to others in the field. It may mean loss
of a publication, a job, a promotion, perhaps a discovery. In this context, many
scientists do not want to "waste" their time looking at someone
else’s claim to have made a breakthrough, unless it is a top person in the
field. What do they have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? Most
likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the
standard point of view. If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means
the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who
have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas.
Responses
A person who challenges the
conventional wisdom is likely first to be ignored, then dismissed and finally,
if these responses are inadequate, attacked. The first stage is being ignored.
When an outsider sends a paper to established scientists, for example, many will
not bother to reply. When an entire dissident field establishes its own
publications, it may be ignored by the mainstream.
Dismissal is the most common
response when seeking formal recognition in orthodox channels. A paper sent to a
top journal may be rejected without being sent to referees. Editors often
perform a screening function, deciding what is credible enough to warrant
serious consideration. Editors can also affect the likelihood of acceptance by
their selection of referees.
Sometimes, though, dissidents cannot
be silenced by ignoring and rejecting them. They may develop their own
constituency or gain publicity. For example, nonscientists who point out the
healing power of herbs, based on their own observations, are usually ignored by
medical researchers. Some researchers carry out careful studies of herbs and
seek publication; they are likely to encounter difficulties or, if their work is
published, be ignored by the mainsteam. However, there is a thriving alternative
health movement which is very receptive to any findings about the benefits of
herbs. This poses a threat to corporations, governments, and scientists with a
stake in the conventional approach based on synthetic drugs. At this stage, one
possibility is attack.
A scientist can be attacked in
various ways, including ostracism, petty harassment, excessive scrutiny,
blocking of publications, denial of jobs or tenure, blocking access to research
facilities, withdrawal of research grants, threats, punitive transfers, formal
reprimands, demotion, spreading of rumors, deregistration, dismissal, and
blacklisting, and threats of any of these. There are numerous documented cases
in various fields. For example, many scientists pursuing research critical of
pesticides or proposing alternatives to pesticides have come under attack, for
example having grants removed or being threatened with dismissal (Martin, 1996;
van den Bosch, 1978). Dentists critical of fluoridation have been threatened
with deregistration (Martin, 1991; Waldbott, 1965). Government scientists
critical of nuclear power have lost their staff and been transferred as a form
of harassment (Freeman, 1981; Martin, 1986). Parapsychologists have encountered
difficulties in their careers (Hess, 1992).
Dr John Coulter, a scientist at the
Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide, South Australia, spoke
out about about various environmental and health issues. After he commented
about hazards of pesticides in a talk, the pesticide manufacturer wrote a letter
of complaint to the director of the Institute. After Coulter did a study of the
mutagenic potential of a sterilising agent used at the Institute and released
his results to the workers, he was dismissed (Martin et al., 1986).
Dr George Waldbott, a prominent
allergist and author of hundreds of scientific papers, was the leading US
opponent of fluoridation from the mid 1950s through the 1970s. Waldbott was
visited by a German profluoridationist who misrepresented his intentions, gained
access to Waldbott’s files and then wrote a critical account Waldbott’s
methods. This misleading account later appeared in a dossier on opponents of
fluoridation compiled by the American Dental Association and was used to
undermine Waldbott wherever he appeared (Waldbott, 1965).
The actual cases that are publicized
are the tip of the proverbial iceberg, for several reasons. Many dissenters do
not make an issue of attacks, preferring to keep a low profile and continue
their careers. Also, only some types of attacks are easy to document, such as
reprimands and dismissals. It is very difficult to prove that failure to get a
job or grant is due to discrimination.
Attacks on dissidents are never
admitted as such. They are always justified as being due to inadequacies on the
part of the dissident, such as low quality work or inappropriate behavior. To
determine whether actions against someone are justifiable, it is useful to use
the "double standard test." Is the same action taken against everyone
with the same level of performance? Or is the person who is challenging
conventional wisdom harassed or reprimanded, while others with similar
performance are unaffected?
Another useful test is to ask
whether the response is in line with normal scientific behavior. If a scientist
writes a challenging paper, it should be considered quite legitimate for someone
to call or write to the scientist questioning the method or results or
complaining about bias. This is a process of engagement and dialogue, and does
not jeopardize the scientist’s ability to continue research. Even strong
language should be tolerated if it is directly to the scientist or published in
a journal where there is a timely opportunity to reply. On the other hand, when
a critic threatens a law suit or writes to the scientist’s boss or institution
making a complaint, this is obviously an attempt to intimidate or hinder the
scientist’s work or career. The "call to the boss" is very common
and is an excellent indicator that a response is an attempt to suppress dissent
rather than engage in dialogue.
Attacks are much the same whether
they are made against scientists presenting challenging ideas, against
whistleblowers who speak out about scientific fraud or corporate corruption, or
against scapegoats who become targets for whatever reason. Most scientists are
completely unprepared for attacks. They do not realize that science can be a
ruthless power play in which the most underhanded methods may be used against
those who challenge vested interests. They believe, incorrectly, that formal
channels, such as grievance procedures, professional associations, and courts,
provide reliable avenues for justice, when actually they are strongly weighted
in favor of those with more money and power. In order to survive and thrive as a
challenger, it is necessary to understand the operations of power as well as
knowledge. Most of all, it is important to work out a strategy.
Strategies
Here are some ways of trying to be
treated seriously in the face of hostile interests. There is no single best
strategy; each has advantages and disadvantages. These options each assume some
recognition that success is very unlikely by simply expecting that one’s work
will be treated without any bias.
Mimic orthodox science
Since mainstream scientists expect
contributions to be in a certain standard format, then writing articles in this
format may increase chances of success. Since submissions from institutional
addresses are usually treated more seriously than those from home addresses, it
may be useful to set up an institute &endash; even if it is only one person!
Alternatively, it might be possible to obtain an honorary position at an
established institution, such as a university. There are a few open-minded
departments that may be willing to provide a haven for dissenters.
As well as the superficial
appearance of being orthodox, it may also be useful to carry out research in
what is said to be the orthodox manner, for example using double-blind
randomized trials. Parapsychological research has followed this path, and as a
result is carried out much more "scientifically" than most orthodox
science.
Sometimes this is not enough: the
ideas are too threatening even when they come from the most reputable scientists
from prestigious institutions, and carried out using all the methods claimed to
be required of proper scientific research. In this case, it can be useful to set
up specialist scientific journals, with the highest standards, to give
credibility to the field, and provide a focal point for its workers.
Parapsychological journals fulfill this function.
The more able a field is to do
research and produce results that looks like conventional science, the more
appropriate is the strategy of mimicking science: eventually the mimic will be
taken for &endash; and be &endash; the real thing. A disadvantage is
that the process of squeezing into the scientific mold may exclude some of the
most exciting and provocative aspects of the field. Furthermore, if hostile
vested interests are powerful, the dissenters may not be accepted no matter how
much they replicate the scientific model.
Aim at lower status outlets
If it is impossible to gain
acceptance in top journals and conferences, it may be possible to get a hearing
in less prestigious outlets. There are thousands of journals and all sorts of
conferences, of all different styles, orientations, and statuses. By picking an
outlet that is less resistant to unorthodox ideas, it may be possible to gain an
audience. Perhaps, from these beginnings, some people in the field will provide
comment, critique, or support. This may provide the basis for building a better
argument and gaining wider credibility. There are even some journals that
specialize in work challenging orthodoxy, such as Speculations in Science and
Technology and Medical Hypotheses.
There is no dishonor in publishing
in lower status outlets. After all, most scientists go through their entire
careers never publishing in the leading journals in their fields. It makes sense
to publish somewhere rather than nowhere. On the other hand, it is easier for
challenges to be ignored when they only appear in lower status outlets.
In the case of fluoridation, critics
have long had the greatest difficulty in publishing in mainstream dental
journals. Australian dental researcher Geoffrey Smith could not get past the
referees for the Australian Dental Journal but was successful in numerous
international scientific journals. Applied mathematician Dr Mark Diesendorf had
similar difficulty in publishing his critiques of fluoridation in dental
journals. He made a major breakthrough with an article in Nature, a
highly prestigious scientific journal not controlled by the dental establishment
(Martin, 1991). Scientists critical of fluoridation also set up their own
journal, Fluoride.
Enlist patrons
Is there, somewhere, an open-minded
mainstream scientist who is willing to examine your ideas fairly and, if they
appear to have promise, help in ensuring that they obtain proper recognition?
Many challengers believe the answer must be yes and spend a lot of effort trying
to find this elusive scientist. Unfortunately, most scientists are either too
busy, not sufficiently intelligent or open-minded to grasp the new idea, biased
by prejudice or self-interest, or have too much to lose by championing something
unorthodox. The most desirable patron of a challenger is someone who is fairly
senior, has excellent mainstream credentials and track record, has plenty of
spare time, and is willing take risks on your behalf. It is quite likely that
there is no one who fits this specification. But sometimes there is, so it pays
to inquire. By asking at a few universities for recommendations about
open-minded scientists in a certain field, you may well be directed to one or
two candidates.
Scientists who gain a public
profile, especially those who communicate to a general audience, are obvious
targets. David Suzuki, Paul Davies, and the late Carl Sagan are examples. They
are likely to be totally and utterly overwhelmed by people seeking their help.
It is probably better to seek someone who is known in a speciality but less
known to others.
A patron can be a great help. The
main problem is that lots of effort can be wasted seeking one when actually
there is no one out there.
Seek a different audience
Rather than seeking to obtain
credibility among orthodox scientists, another option is to seek a different
audience. This might be practitioners, those in a different field, or the
general public. For example, some investigators into "alternative
health" distribute leaflets to nutritionists and alternative therapists,
publish articles in popular health magazines, and give talks to community
groups. Some parapsychologists have obtained support from industry, which has
less hostility to the paranormal than pure scientists.
The big advantage of this strategy
is that it is possible to sidestep the most obvious hostile interests. If the
cancer establishment is opposed to a treatment relying on a common substance,
there are a number of groups that may be more receptive, including some patients
and relatives, alternative therapists, and health food stores. The strategy can
have many ramifications: setting up journals, newsletters, and conferences;
establishing protocols and certification procedures; seeking mass media
coverage.
Seeking a different audience has
risks too. It may lead to an insular alternative community that cannot recognize
its shortcomings due to its own interests. It may lead to associations with
bizarre allies that serve to discredit what is sensible. It may make acceptance
by the mainstream more difficult.
Any challenging group that develops
a significant audience is a potential target for attack. Dissenters who have no
following are usually ignored. Dissenters with a mass audience are a threat to
the mainstream. This suggests that it is wise to develop a solid foundation of
research experience and results, organizations, networks and activist skills
before gaining too wide a public profile.
Expose suppression of dissent
When attacks are made on dissenters
and their work, the best response is to expose the attacks and use them to gain
wider attention on the original work. Detailed documentation should be kept of
all attacks, and a careful, conservative, and absolutely accurate account
prepared and used to reveal the tactics of the other side. However, it is a
mistake to become preoccupied by the injustice of attacks, for example by suing.
Rather, the focus should always be returned to the work in question and the need
for a fair evaluation.
Dissenters need to be prepared for
anything. In the course of harassment, reprimands, transfers, dismissals and
other such actions, there can be unscrupulous behavior, including spreading of
lies, destruction of documents, blackmail of potential supporters, and
frame-ups. Most people can scarcely believe what happens to whistleblowers, and
indeed can scarcely believe it when it happens to them! It is salutory to read
some whistleblower stories (Dempster, 1997; Glazer & Glazer, 1989; Martin,
1997; Martin et al., 1986; Nader, Petkas, & Blackwell, 1972) and study
advice from people who have dealt with whistleblower cases (Stewart, Devine,
& Rasor, 1989).
Build a social movement
If vested interests are stopping the
expression or acceptance of certain ideas, ultimately the only thing that will
change this is a change in society, including decision making and attitudes. One
way to help bring this about is through a social movement, which can be thought
of as a loose alliance of individuals and groups pushing for a change in the way
people do things. Conventional examples are the environmental, feminist, peace,
and anti-abortion movements. Social movements normally challenge established
interests; a successful movement can become a vested interest, as in the case of
neoliberalism. Some movements are not so obvious. For example, computers did not
appear by themselves: there was a strong push to introduce them, which can be
called a "computerization movement" (Kling & Iacono 1988). Science
was certainly a social movement in its early years, challenging the religious
establishment.
Isolated dissenters can be
suppressed easily; that is the fate of most whistleblowers. A movement, in
contrast, has a better chance of gaining a hearing since it combines the skills
and resources of many like-minded people who are committed to a cause and who
can support each other. It is worthwhile for dissenters to contact activist
organizations that are related to their area. Many activists have great skills
in analyzing local power structures, mobilizing support, and building campaigns
(Coover et al., 1981; Shaw, 1996). Building a social movement is not a quick
road to success but in the long run it may offer the best prospect for
challenging vested interests.
The social system of science has
forged enormously strong links to governments and corporations and as well has
developed vested interests in education systems, career structures, and
organizational arrangements. Indeed, science itself can be seen as a social
problem (Restivo 1988). Many aspects of the practice of science do not live up
to the high ideals of "science" as a dispassionate search for truth.
If there is any hope of reform, dissenters have a crucial role to play. To be
effective, they need to understand that science is a system of power as well as
knowledge, and that consequently they need to be prepared for a power struggle
as well as a struggle over ideas.
References
-
Abraham, John (1995). Science,
Politics and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Controversy and Bias in Drug
Regulation. London: ICL Press. -
Barnes, Barry (1977). Interests
and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. -
Blissett, Marlan (1972). Politics
in Science. Boston: Little, Brown. -
Boffey, Philip M. (1975). The
Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science. New
York: McGraw-Hill. -
Collins, Randall (1979). The
Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification.
New York: Academic Press. -
Coover, Virginia, Deacon, Ellen,
Esser, Charles, & Moore, Christopher (1981). Resource Manual for a
Living Revolution. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. -
Dempster, Quentin (1997). Whistleblowers.
Sydney: ABC Books. -
Dickson, David (1984). The
New Politics of Science. New York: Pantheon. -
Elias, Norbert, Martins,
Herminio, & Whitley, Richard (Eds.) (1982). Scientific Establishments
and Hierarchies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. -
Freeman, Leslie J. (1981). Nuclear
Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out. New York: Norton. -
Glazer, Myron Peretz, &
Glazer, Penina Migdal (1989). The Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in
Government and Industry. New York: Basic Books. -
Hess, David J. (1992).
Disciplining heterodoxy, circumventing discipline: parapsychology,
anthropologically. In David Hess and Linda Layne (Eds.), Knowledge and
Society: The Anthropology of Science and Technology, Vol. 9 (pp.
223-252). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. -
Kling, Rob, & Iacono,
Suzanne (1988). The mobilization of support for computerization: the role of
computerization movements. Social Problems, 35, 226-243. -
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. -
Larson, Magali Sarfatti (1977). The
Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University
of California Press. -
Latour, Bruno (1987). Science
in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press. -
Martin, Brian (1979). The
Bias of Science. Canberra: Society for Social Responsibility
in Science. -
Martin, Brian (1981). The
scientific straightjacket: the power structure of science and the
suppression of environmental scholarship. Ecologist, 11(1),
33-43. -
Martin, Brian (1986). Nuclear
suppression. Science and Public Policy, 13, 312-320. -
Martin, Brian (1991). Scientific
Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate.
Albany: State University of New York Press. -
Martin, Brian (1996). Critics
of pesticides: whistleblowing or suppression of dissent? Philosophy
and Social Action, 22 (3), 33-55. -
Martin, Brian (1997). Suppression
Stories. Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent. -
Martin, Brian, Baker, C. M. Ann,
Manwell, Clyde, & Pugh, Cedric (Eds.) (1986). Intellectual
Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses. Sydney:
Angus and Robertson. -
Mitroff, Ian I. (1974). The
Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Psychology of
the Apollo Moon Scientists. Amsterdam: Elsevier. -
Mulkay, Michael J. (1976). Norms
and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15, 637-656. -
Nader, Ralph, Petkas, Peter J.,
& Blackwell, Kate (Eds.) (1972). Whistle Blowing: The Report of the
Conference on Professional Responsibility. New York: Grossman. -
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J.
(1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of
published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-195. -
Primack, Joel, & von Hippel,
Frank (1974). Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena.
New York: Basic Books. -
Rahman, A. (1972). Anatomy of
Science. New Delhi: National. -
Restivo, Sal (1988). Modern
science as a social problem. Social Problems, 35 (3), 206-225. -
Shaw, Randy (1996). The
Activist’s Handbook: A Primer for the 1990s and Beyond. Berkeley:
University of California Press. -
Stewart, Julie, Devine, Thomas,
& Rasor, Dina (1989). Courage Without Martyrdom: A Survival Guide for
Whistleblowers. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Project; http://www.whistleblower.org/gap/. -
van den Bosch, Robert (1978). The
Pesticide Conspiracy. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. -
Waldbott, George L. (1965). A
Struggle with Titans. New York: Carlton Press. -
Watson, David Lindsay (1938). Scientists
Are Human. London: Watts.
» login to post comments