‘Free to fabricate’ or ‘barred from teaching’? Discord over COVID underscores threats to academic freedom — and the public

Two scientists. Two prominent institutions. 

One is a tenured professor running a microbial research laboratory where she investigates mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. During the COVID pandemic she lent her expertise to inform the public about the virus and mitigation efforts. She used comics, media interviews, and humor. She spoke with a jovial kindness that connected, and she was creating needed change in a crisis. Her science communication efforts earned her the distinction as New Zealander of the Year in 2020. 

The other is a staff scientist in a computational artificial intelligence lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For a decade she has emerged as a notorious ideologue, leveling alarmist claims about genetically engineered crops, promoting an indisputable link between glyphosate and autism, and crowing the dangers of vaccination.

The first scientist represents a clear consensus, a body of evidence that grows daily. 

The second one presents her hunches, rangy hypotheses borne of yarn-and-stickpins-on-a-corkboard cherry picking ventures that congeal as controversial opinion articles in low-impact journals, YouTube videos, and painfully cranky books. 

One has been banned from public discourse. The other finds a larger audience. Can you guess which is which? 

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Sharing academic freedom?

Both scientists share an umbrella, the broad promises of Academic Freedom, a covenant that allows and encourages scholars to share their expertise, to “accept a role as critic and conscious of society”, without reprisal. But the way they have been treated by their respective universities is telling, illustrating the threats faced by science communicators who take their public responsibilities seriously. Dr. Siouxsie Wiles (left) has been a valuable voice in connecting science to the public during the pandemic. Yet, she has faced tremendous harassment for her efforts and was silenced by her institution.

 In contrast, Dr. Stephanie Seneff (right) visibly speculates on the “dangers” of the COVID-19 vaccines and constructs tenuous links to disease—the kind of demonstrably false claims that are regularly removed from Twitter and Facebook when made by others. [Read GLP Profile of Stephanie Seneff] Yet, her campaign to discredit science continues, and is magnified by prime-time media outlets who are giving her a critic-free platform. 

Last Sunday on Fox News she stated that through her “research” (she does not perform clinical, medical research) she has discovered a confident connection between the COVID19 vaccine and neurological disease, particularly Parkinson’s Disease. She speaks with a credible-sounding word salad of technical terms that clearly impressed the host while it misinformed a substantial viewership, on a network that has promoted vaccine skepticism. 

Seneff falsely links COVID vaccinations to Parkinson’s Disease on The Ingraham Angle, claiming that “repeated boosters will be devastating in the long term” and parents “should do everything they can to avoid (the vaccine)”

Wiles is a microbiologist, an Associate Professor of Medical Sciences at the University of Auckland. She wears a lab coat, but also a pair of Doc Marten combat boots and a wild mane of hot-pink hair. She emerged as the trusted, expert, go-to source for media and public audiences concerning COVID, vaccinations and quarantines. Wiles has consistently represented the best science as the pandemic evolved. She connects through effective online animations, through articles in popular press, through interviews and stories. 

But as Wiles elevated the conversation, her efforts were not appreciated by all. Angry anti-vaccination groups, COVID19 denialists, and others opposed to the science or policy took to social media, hammering Wiles and her institution with two solid years of harassment. Threatening emails, doxing, and even physical confrontation were the price of teaching science, and it was daily and intense. 

Wiles did the right thing. She stepped up when most academics remained quiet. She changed minds. She used creative media and her trusted platform as a public scientist to present the latest truths that empirical research gave us. 

In response, the University of Auckland did nothing to insulate Wiles from harassment, except to tell her to remove herself from the conversation. She was instructed to step out of social media, to take paid leave, and follow the guidance of advisors to “not require” public commentary. 

Science silenced

While the highly credible Wiles is being shut down, Seneff is peddling dangerous nonsense of all kinds  She entertains audiences at questionable conferences, writes books about the deadly dangers of low-toxicity agricultural chemistry, and is featured prominently in overnight conspiratorial media (e.g. Infowars, Coast-to-Coast AM).

She is particularly dangerous because she wields the credibility badge of an “MIT Senior Research Scientist” to promote her speculative views, such as vaccines cause harm, an innocuous herbicide will have 50% of children autistic by 2025, and the same herbicide was the biological basis of school shootings and the Boston Marathon Bombings in 2013.

During the pandemic she has claimed that the herbicide glyphosate was causing COVID symptoms because it was used on corn, which was processed into ethanol, added to automobile fuel, converted to exhaust, and then breathed in by humans. Classic. 

Seneff has published claims strongly implying that glyphosate exposure is the causal factor of chronic disease, such as cancer, heart disease, obesity, asthma, Celiac disease, infertility, Alzheimer’s Disease and diabetes, among, well, pretty much every disease someone can die from. She consistently and strategically blurs the line between correlation and causation. Her speculation is so wild and rampant that two authors typically critical of agricultural technology have published articles correctly citing Seneff’s speculation-based certainty as “misrepresentation”, “failed logic” and “syllogism fallacies”. Her articles in scholarly press are highly criticized, and in one case was anointed with a note of concern from the publisher.  

One of her truly execrable books is being touted here on vaccine rejectionist Robert F Kennedy, Jr.’s disinformation website by alternative supplement peddler, osteopath Joseph Mercola, who the New York Times called “the most influential spreader of coronavirus misinformation online.” [Read GLP Joseph Mercola profile]

Freedom or freedumb?

The range of response from Seneff and Wiles’ respective institutions frames the dangerous paradox. While the one speaking from expertise is told to shut up and take paid leave, the one pitching baseless hypotheses is free to flip failed theories on prime-time television. The one seeking to end the pandemic through sober scientific conversation is unprotected and silenced, the one seeking to advance an anti-agriculture, anti-vaccination agenda pours gas on a fire of anti-scientific dissent, unbridled.

So where is the real line? The contrasting pandemic stories delineate the extremes of how Academic Freedom is interpreted and enforced. Clearly, the evidence base of each scholarly position is not the deciding factor. So why are scientifically rigorous efforts shut down, while a flighty soup of speculations that harms public health efforts is free to flow? 

The answer is simple: The vocal minority of the anti-vaccination, anti-GMO, anti-COVID vaccine crowd demands that front-line scientists be reined in, that universities silence the scientists that speak the truth. Scientists are attacked and defamed in social media and activist websites. Universities are pounded with onerous, expensive public records requests, trying to blow the lid off the conspiracy, attempting to discover what would possibly motivate a scientist to teach science? Universities, risk averse and wanting to avoid controversy, too often bend to the pressure, asking (or in some cases demanding) that faculty stay out of the conversation. 

On the other hand, the scientifically enlightened defer to the self-policing nature of science. It’s presumed that crank opinions will fade, that limp claims will not influence policy, and hard core published reproducible evidence from rigorous experimentation will win the day. The President of MIT’s phone isn’t ringing. 

Flaky freedom and the public trust

False or misleading information around COVID-19 extends a pandemic, destroys public trust and impedes public health efforts. Disinformation has a body count. Still, visible, bias-confirming, dangerous speculation is permitted to flourish under the guise of academic freedom. The internet ensures that it is prominent, ubiquitous, and everlasting. 

The solutions? 

Academic institutions must understand their valuable potential to lend clarity to contentious conversations in policy and science, and the power of academic freedom to help, or to harm, public good. Academic institutions need to embrace their positions as the representatives of the evidence. They need to promote their role as rigorous interpreters of reproducible data, checking and acknowledging implicit biases, and distilling the strengths and limitations of concerns or claims. They need to elevate the faculty that are willing to take on this important role, recognize them, promote their efforts, and run into controversy like a fire fighter runs into a burning building.

On the other hand, they must decide when to limit of agenda-driven conjecture that runs counter to empirical evidence, when not stated clearly as hypothesis. Opinions not bolstered by evidence or at least a plausible hypothesis must be questioned, perhaps reigned in. Misinforming the public during a pandemic has a cost, especially when amplified through powerful media. Institutions need to guard against that. 

In both cases academic freedom is being abused to the detriment of science communication, public understanding, and most of all, trust in our academic and medical institutions. Both cases frame the danger of not telling the truth, of not defending evidence-based positions, and the impact information can have on public perception of science.  

Kevin Folta is a professor, communications consultant and speaker. He hosts the Talking Biotech and GLP’s Science Facts and Fallacies podcasts. Views are presented independent from his roles at the University of Florida. @Kevin Folta

This article first appeared on the GLP on January 18, 2022.

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}
screenshot at  pm

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring drew attention to pesticides and their possible dangers to humans, birds, mammals and the ...
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.