[ad_1]
William Brangham:
Amna, Michael Mann has been influential in climate research throughout his long career and has become one of the most effective communicators about the effects of climate change. But he has also faced considerable backlash.
In 2012, conservative policy analysts compared Mann to a child molester, saying that instead of sexually abusing children, he sexually abused and tortured Data. Another called his work fraudulent. Mann sued the two men. And yesterday, after 12 years, he won his case.
Now we turn to another prominent scientist who has also endured this kind of extreme pain. Dr. Peter Hotez is dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Hotez, it’s good to see you again.
I know you’re in a completely different field, but I imagine there was a small sense of victory when you saw Michael Mann win this defamation case.
Dr. Peter Hotez, Baylor College of Medicine: Yeah, exactly.
And remember the attack. Currently, attacks on climate science and attacks on biomedicine are merging to some degree. And sometimes it comes from the same force.
I think the message this week is to remember that the attacks on both climate science and biomedicine that seek to denigrate and undermine science are not just about science. They have taken the next step of attacking scientists and painting us as public enemies.
And that’s where things start to get really dangerous. In other words, both Michael and I are stalked on a regular basis. We receive threats online, phone calls to our offices, and sometimes physical confrontations. So we’ve reached a new level.
That’s why winning in court matters: It’s certainly fine to disagree with science and express skepticism, but it crosses the line when it attacks scientists and puts us at risk. I think it’s because it sends a signal.
[ad_2]
Source link
