Disclosure of Attempts By Florence Debarre to Silence Criticism of Her in 2022
I'm making public Florence Debarre's efforts to suppress my criticism of her, conducted by emails in late 2022. I'm compelled to disclose these following Justin's exit from Biosafety Now.
(1/n)
This situation began with my Twitter post on November 8, 2022, in which I criticized Debarre's questioning of Alina Chan's qualifications.
(2/n)
To provide additional context, I've included a November 12, 2022 post by P Markolin, highlighting similar efforts by others to challenge Chan's credentials.
(3/n)
I've organized a series of 9 emails that clearly show Flo Debarre's attempts to silence my criticism and the subsequent reaction from my supervisor, the Director of the Waksman. These are presented below in a chronological thread.
What would have happened if I weren't tenured?
(4/n)
Debarre has copies of emails #1, #2, #3, & #9. I urge her to post screen images of these, ensuring the information's accuracy but redact my coworkers' names & email addresses. At the end of the thread, I have posted emails #4, #5, #6, #7, and #8 with redacted personal information of my coworkers.
(5/n)
LIST OF EMAILS
Email #1 (Flo's Threat): From Flo Debarre to me, dated November 10, 2022.
Email #2 (My Response to Flo's Threat): My response to Debarre, dated November 15, 2022.
Email #3 (Flo's Execution of Threat): From Debarre to Waksman Director and Exec Director, with me in cc, dated December 26, 2022.
Email #4 (Response from Waksman Director Due to Flo's Threat): From Waksman Director to me, dated December 26, 2022.
Emails #5 and #6 (My Criticism of Director's Assumptions): My emails to Waksman Director, sent on December 26, 2022, at 2:41 PM and 2:59 PM.
Email #7 and #8 (Director's Admission of Premature Judgment and My Request for Meeting): From Waksman Director to me, dated December 27, 2022; and my response, dated December 27, 2022.
Email #9 (My Condemnation of Flo's Unethical Behavior and Demand for Non-Interference): My email to Debarre, cc'ing Waksman Director and Exec Director, dated December 28, 2022.
(6/n)
Email #1 (Flo's Threat): From Flo Debarre to me, dated November 10, 2022.
Bryce Nickels,
I am asking you to stop interacting with me on Twitter, both directly and indirectly. In particular, I am asking you to stop screenshotting my tweets and thereby directing your herd of trolls towards me.
I am not CCing anyone right now, but if this unprofessional behaviour continues, I am ready to report it higher up at your institution.
--
Florence Débarre
(7/n)
Email #2 (My Response to Flo's Threat): My response to Debarre, dated November 15, 2022.
Apologies for the delay in response as I received this email when I was traveling to a meeting and did not notice it until today.
Below are my responses to your message:
(1) I will do my best to avoid interactions with you on Twitter, but I cannot promise they will completely stop. (For instance, there might be situations where your name is included on a thread I am replying to)
(2) I will honor your request to not screenshot your tweets any longer.
(3) Your statement claiming I directed a herd of trolls towards you is false.
(4) I categorically reject your characterization of my behavior as “unprofessional."
(5) I interpret your statement “if this unprofessional behavior continues, I am ready to report it higher up at your institution” as a direct threat against my career that, in my opinion, is both unprofessional and unethical.
I have no interest in further discussions of the points above.
I have no interest in future interactions with you.
Please do not make any more threats against my career.
Please do not contact me again.
Bryce
(8/n)
Email #3 (Flo's Execution of Threat): From Debarre to Waksman Director and Exec Director, with me in cc, dated December 26, 2022.
Dear [NAME] and [NAME]
(cc Dr Nickels)
I am an evolutionary biologist working at France's National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and based in Paris. I am currently leading a research project on the search for the origin of SARS-CoV-2. In this context, I am following and documenting dynamics of mis- and dis-information on social media, and I regularly post findings on Twitter.
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a hot topic, and I have to deal with online harassment, insults and attacks. I have decided not to tolerate such abuse coming from people in academia, and this is the reason for this email.
Two members of your institution are very active on Twitter and act extremely unprofessionally on this platform. I know the first one, have been in regular online meetings with him, and, so far, he has not crossed the threshold with me (he has with others, though). I have never met the second one, Bryce Nickels, and I did not even know his name before his appearance on Twitter. Bryce Nickels has somehow decided that it was OK to post insults and derogatory comments about other academics on Twitter, and has been targeting me in particular.
On Nov 10, 2022, I emailed Bryce Nickels and explicitly asked him to stop. His comments, in the form of quote-tweets or screenshots, would indeed also trigger waves of harassment by the numerous pseudonymous trolls following him. I warned him that if his unprofessional behavior continued on Twitter, I would report him higher up at his institution. Bryce Nickels replied a few days later, promised to stop interactions on Twitter, and indeed did. For a few weeks, I was at peace.
Unfortunately, he has started again recently, so as I had warned him, I am now emailing you to let you know about this unprofessional behavior.
I know how much free speech and academic freedom are valued in the US, so the main aim of this email is simply to make you realize the damage to your "brand". Like many others, I did not know of Rutger's "Waksman Institute of Microbiology" before, and this name is now associated in my mind to internet bullies, as it is in the minds of many others witnessing their actions on Twitter.
Sincerely,
Flo Débarre
(9/n)
This is the screenshot embedded in Email #3. For context, the words "unethical, dishonest, and hypocritical" are my response to Florin showing me that Debarre was still sharing screenshots of my tweets, despite my commitment to stop sharing screenshots of her tweets (email #2)
(10/n)
Email #4 (Response from Waksman Director Due to Flo's Threat): From Waksman Director to me, dated December 26, 2022.
Bryce,
Please stop.
This is damaging to you, and to all of us in the Waksman Institute.
(11/n)
Emails #5 and #6 (My Criticism of Director's Assumptions): My emails to Waksman Director, sent on December 26, 2022, at 2:41 PM and 2:59 PM.
[NAME] - there is nothing to stop - this person is lying.
-----------------------
For reference, this is the prior correspondence.
I would have appreciated if you would have given me the benefit of the doubt rather than trusting the words of someone you have never met.
She has been contacting the workplaces of anyone that challenges her opinions as a means of suppressing their dissenting views.
I will contact the union to see if there is something they can do.
I will also see if it would make sense to contact her employer given she sent me a threatening email from her workplace account.
(12/n)
Email #7 (Director's Admission of Premature Judgment): From Waksman Director to me, dated December 27, 2022
Hi Bryce,
You’re right, I should have asked you about this first.
Can you explain to me what has happened?
I think if someone is saying that they now associate Waksman with internet bullies I need to understand this.
If it’s easier to discuss in person we can meet at Waksman.
[NAME]
(13/n)
Email #8 (My Request for Meeting): From me to Waksman Director, dated December 27, 2022.
[NAME]- thanks for the message.
I responded to her as clear as I could. I am not sure if you wrote her back or not.
We should probably meet in person and I can try to explain what this is about.
She is a very bad actor. But she is smart.
(14/n)
Email #9 (My Condemnation of Flo's Unethical Behavior and Demand for Non-Interference): My email to Debarre, cc'ing Waksman Director and Exec Director, dated December 28, 2022.
Dear Dr Débarre,
Your accusations are false and defamatory.
Your behavior is unethical, dishonest, hypocritical, unprofessional, and now has crossed the line into harassment and abuse.
Specifically, in your prior email you threatened me (harassment) and now you have made good on your promised threat (abuse).
as I stated in my prior email to you: 1. I have no interest in future interactions with you. 2. Please do not make any more threats against my career. 3. Please do not contact me again.
Please stop contacting me. More importantly, please stop contacting people I work with.
Your email is an attempt to manipulate my colleagues and as such, I consider this direct harassment of them.
They have nothing to do with this, please stop.
I suspect you think you are fighting for a just and righteous cause and have convinced yourself that your actions are justified. I find your actions to be unethical and detestable.
I have no interest in any and all future interactions with you. However, because of your recent behavior, I can no longer promise to ignore you on Twitter. If you mention me on your page, harass Alina, Richard (or other people that you disagree with), "audit my likes,” as you recently did, or continue to harass and manipulate people I work with, I will respond.
Please stop trying to damage my career because you don’t agree with my opinions on COVID.
As noted by many others, this is part of your concerted effort to silence people that disagree with you by using any means necessary.
I find it particularly scary that you begin your email by stating you are "following and documenting dynamics of mis- and dis-information.”
You are not following and documenting mis- and dis-information— you are spreading mis- and dis-information.
Please stop contacting me.
Please stop harassing me.
Please stop threatening me
Please stop abusing me.
Please stop spreading lies about me.
Please stop contacting my colleagues.
Please stop manipulating my colleagues.
Please stop harassing my colleagues.
Bryce
(15/n)
*** replaces earlier post with incomplete redactions***
I will share screenshots of emails 1-3 and 9 once Debarre either shares screenshots of these emails or confirms that their contents, as previously posted, are accurate. In the meantime, here are images of emails 4-8. (16/n)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
on Dec 30, 2011, The Washington Post published: “A flu risk worth taking” by Anthony Fauci, Gary Nabel, & Francis Collins, which argued: “important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory.”
(1/5)
and, on Oct 9, 2012, mBio published: “Research on Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus: The Way Forward” by Anthony Fauci which stated: “In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events...
(2/5)
...what if [a scientist working with an enhanced potential pandemic pathogen] becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?
1/ 🧵The harms of not holding virologists accountable for their lies, fraud, harassment and bullying.
Various examples of despicable behavior by virologists. These examples reveal that virologists are not victims of anti-science, they are perpetrators of anti-science.
2/ Given the massive amount of morbidity and mortality associated with EIDs over the past 30 years, the balance between public health risk and inaction is clear.
3/ For CoV researchers, regulatory complexity increased in 2012 when SARS-CoV was designated as a ‘select agent’ by the HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
🧵1/Upholding Scientific Inquiry & Accountability by ChatGPT
The article "The harms of promoting the LL hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins w/o evidence" dismisses the lab leak hypothesis prematurely & overlooks the necessity of transparency & accountability in scientific inquiry.
2/The Need for Comprehensive Investigation
While the article emphasizes the importance of adhering to scientific evidence, it is crucial to recognize that scientific conclusions are not static. They must be continually reassessed in light of new data.
3/The lab leak hypothesis, although lacking definitive evidence, remains a plausible scenario that merits thorough investigation. Dismissing it outright undermines the scientific method, which relies on openness to explore all potential explanations until proven otherwise.