Thread by @GidMK

I've been thinking a bit about why I'm so unimpressed by the arguments about how terrible "academic silencing" is, and I've got some thoughts 1/n

2/n You know the arguments I mean. They usually go something like "[x famous academic] is being horribly silenced/faced the modern inquisition!"

And they usually come off as, well, nonsense

3/n Now, part of this is because the academic being defended usually has not by any description been silenced. Nobel laureates and tenured professors at Stanford don't really need defending they can do it themselves

4/n As a wise man said "it's basically impossible to silence a man who can call his own press conferences" (paraphrased)

5/n But the other thing about these ridiculous arguments that I dislike is how incredibly costless they are

No one is risking much when they go to bat for, say, Professor John Ioannidis

6/n Seriously, ignoring anything else, Prof Ioannidis is one of the most famous academics in the world, and a tenured professor with no small number of friends/colleagues

7/n When you defend an eminent professor, you're not so much fighting the current as you are riding the wave of support

It's a bit like this scene from Rick and Morty

8/n I mean, Professor Ioannidis is, by all accounts, a lovely guy and a very dedicated researcher

But he's also enormously famous, and clearly in no danger of being "silenced" in any way any time soon

9/n Where are the defenses of the PhD students who speak up? The post-docs who have been shouted down?

They exist. But they don't get STAT editorials

10/n Often, FINDING these people is quite hard, because THEY HAVE BEEN SILENCED. They have little power, and their voices regularly go unheard despite often having really important things to say

11/n But instead of trying to push up the powerless, we get people arguing that Scott Atlas, one of the most powerful medical professionals in the world for much of 2020, was a victim of "silencing"

12/n Any narrative that talks about silencing but focuses on some of the most famous scientists globally is, to my mind, more about generating media attention than it is about academic integrity

13/n To a great extent, that's because they are defending the powerful from scrutiny, instead of trying to make space for the powerless to have a voice

14/n When you defend a powerful professor, his friends and colleagues will join you

When you defend a post-doc who's been kicked out of a lab for blowing the whistle, you have to fight the powerful people who silenced them with no support

15/n If we really care about the sanctity of open debate, we should be stopping attacks that punch down, not the rare occasion when a tenured professor's colleagues are mean to them in a way that has no real impact on their career

16/n And look, I'm not writing any of this on my own behalf. I have by no possible definition of the word been "silenced"

But I know plenty of people who kind of have

17/n Some of them are public, not all of them want to be, but if you want examples @hertzpodcast has covered this sort of issue numerous times. It's prevalent, and it is a problem