Thread by @binsan5

(1/n) This comment and our reply on our #Nature paper looking at fish behaviour and #oceanacidification has gotten a lot attention. Unfortunately, some of it has been very negative and unprofessional. Here’s my POV.

https://twitter.com/FredrikJutfelt/status/1319173770947547137

(2/n) First, this is a topic that folks feel passionate about. That’s great, and I’m glad the paper and both comments have sparked discussion. This is a healthy part of the scientific process and how we progress as a community.

(3/n) However, devolving into name calling and mud-slinging helps nothing, and is harmful esp to those of us without permanent positions on all sides. We don’t always have to agree scientifically, but please let’s be civil and respectful.

(4/n) Also, #climatechange IS REAL. The #GBR is in trouble. Anyone who misconstrues our paper to claim that science is broken and scientists are liars doesn’t understand how science works. This is science in action, and is an important part of how we come to understand the world

(5/n) I had a lot of anxiety around publishing the original paper and this reply because I feared things would devolve the way it has. I feared I would lose friends, respect and reputation. I feared the pushback from the community and the war that is breaking out

6/n) But there is no place for fear in science. I trust our results, even if they're unpopular. Researchers on papers we criticize also trust their results. The discrepancy is at the heart of the debate, and is worthwhile for the community as long as it’s constructive

(7/n) We have been accused of publishing our results with malicious intent, of looking to destroy careers, etc. I think this is because of our role in #perchgate, but it’s important not to conflate the two.

(8/n) We all have a responsibility to conduct ourselves ethically and take a stand when we see unethical behaviour. I will not apologize for standing against misconduct in the past even if this is being used against us now.

(9/n) Discrepancies in our results do not have to invoke fraud. Unconscious bias, P-hacking, HARKing, selective reporting, methods etc. play a role. Our point is that previous claims are not as robust once methods are updated and exp. conducted in ways that reduce bias.

(10/n) Our results were presented at many conferences over the past several years and there have been discussions with people on all sides. Perhaps not as many as some would like, but the general results were not a secret in the community before the @nature paper came out.

(11/n) Finally, many of us who work directly and tangentially on this topic are friends, colleagues and co-authors, and hopefully will continue to be long after this blows over. Scientific disagreement is normal and healthy as long as it remains civil. Let's remember that.