Recent studies reveal the alarming factors influencing harassment against scientists, which have escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Research from the University of Amsterdam has investigated how worldviews, radicalization risk factors, and personality traits contribute to the rise of harassment and violence against scientists. This inquiry is particularly pertinent, as incidents of bullying, doxing, and even death threats have significantly increased since the pandemic began.
The studies, conducted by V.G. Gligorić, C. Reinhardt, E. Nieuwenhuijzen, A.F. van Kleef, and B. Rutjens, focused on the complex interplay between various individual beliefs and traits. The data suggests individuals who hold science cynicism—the perception scientists are incompetent and corrupt—are more likely to approve of harassment behaviors.
The research involved two pre-registered studies totaling 749 participants, examining attitudes toward scientists as well as behavioral measures of aggression. Their findings reveal correlations between science cynicism, political ideology, conspiracy mentality, and the willingness to harm scientists, indicating these factors are not only prevalent but illuminating motivations behind harassment.
One of the more surprising aspects of the research is the role of personality traits associated with the dark triad—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The inclination to approve of harassment behaviors correlates strongly with these traits, establishing personality as a significant predictor. Participants demonstrating higher levels of science cynicism and personality flaws expressed greater acceptance of antisocial attitudes toward scientists.
Timing is another factor. The pandemic catalyzed increased tension between scientists and portions of the public, particularly as scientific expertise dictated responses to COVID-19, leading to periods of social unrest. This environment undeniably contributed to growing mistrust and subsequent harassment. Data shows nearly 38% of scientists working on pandemic-related research faced some form of harassment, with 15% receiving direct death threats.
Both radicalization risk factors—relative deprivation and perceived threat—were also shown to correlate with approving attitudes toward harassment. Those feeling threatened by scientists’ research or objectives were more inclined to justify aggressive behaviors. Scientists were viewed as representing not only knowledge but potential challenges to individual security and ideological beliefs.
This research endeavors to map the individual traits and societal beliefs underpinning scientist harassment, significantly contributing to the larger conversation on anti-science movements. The authors are clear about the ramifications: addressing the concerns leading to such negative behavior is integral to mitigating harm against scientists. Scientists work diligently to provide solutions to societal challenges, including health crises, climate change, and technological advancements, and the violence and harassment they endure can significantly hinder progress.
Promoting trust between scientists and the general public appears to be the most promising way to address this issue. Educative initiatives should focus on fostering science literacy and illustrating the importance of scientific work, uniting communities around the benefits of scientific inquiry, rather than division. This research highlights the urgent need for societal change to combat rising anti-science sentiments and violence against those who seek to improve our world through knowledge.