Who is behind hate mail to scientists? UvA researchers paint a picture
Scientists are often threatened. But who are the people behind those threats? UvA scientists published the first analysis on this. “Often the threateners believe scientist are incompetent and corrupt and experience their work as a threat.”
When virologist Marion Koopmans visited a museum in corona time, she was overwhelmed by a shouting crowd that harassed her and kept banging on the windows when security closed the doors. As a public figure in the corona pandemic, Koopmans was showered with threats from corona deniers.
Koopmans was not the only scientist to face threats. The safety of scientists worldwide is under pressure. A research report published last year showed that researchers worldwide face threats on social media, social insecurity, sexual harassment and physical violence.
What prompts people to threaten scientists is still little known. UvA researchers investigated which worldviews, risk of radicalisation and personality traits underlie this. Last week, that research was published by scientific journal Scientific Reports. Five questions to PhD student Vukašin Gligorić, first author of the study.
How often are scientists threatened?
“Numbers on that we don’t have. But it is common, I also see it happening in my surroundings. We also know that it is more common in polarised topics such as climate change and corona. For instance, 38 per cent of scientists who conducted research on Covid-19 faced threats. These ranged from unwanted e-mails to death threats. And from doxing, the public dissemination of personal information such as address details, to visiting scientists at home and harassing them.”
There is one remedy for science skeptics, and that is to make science personal, concludes UvA PhD student Bojana Većkalov, who will receive her doctorate in psychology on the 23th of January, 2025. In doing so, she shows that trust in science cannot be explained by political considerations only, also psychological factors play a role.
“Trust in science has to do with psychological distance,” says Većkalov. “The further away science feels, the less trust people usually have. Presenting science as something conducted by scientists nearby, who are confident of its relevance to practice and willing to engage in conversation with the public, lowers distrust in all domains.”
“Threats to scientists peaked during corona. The restrictions had the effect of making many people feel frustrated and threatened, and that – according to our research – in turn prompts threats against scientists. Yet to our knowledge, no research had yet been done on who those people were.”
What is the motivation to threaten scientists?
“It consists of two factors: science cynicism and perceived threat. Science cynism means that you think scientists are incompetent and corrupt, that they collaborate with big companies and act out of their own interests.”
“In addition, people also perceive a threat because of the work scientists do. After all, if scientists publish about climate change, people fear they will lose their jobs and have to change their lives. This threat is partly symbolic, people feel that scientists restrict their freedom: whether you are no longer allowed to drink from paper cups or barbecue, people feel threatened by it.”
What does the stereotypical person who threatens scientists look like?
“First, it’s important to state that, of the 750 random US citizens who participated in our study, only a very small proportion approved of harassing scientists. That was really an exception.”
“Of that small group, we got the following picture. A person with a right-wing political bent, who, more importantly, has the perception that scientists are corrupt and incompetent and feel threatened by the work of scientists. Add in personality traits such as psychopathy and narcissism, and that is sometimes enough to proceed to threaten scientists. There are probably other traits, but we have not investigated them.”
Are you reassured by that result?
“It is nice to see that most people do not approve of harassment of scientists, so in that sense yes. And we were able to identify factors that contribute to harassment and paint a picture of the people who do it.”
What can we do with the results?
“That quickly becomes ethically problematic, because you can’t start labelling and tracking these people. Besides, it’s not so easy to get these people to trust science again. There are also problems in science, like the replication crisis, so you shouldn’t trust science blindly either. So it’s quite complex to explain.”
“Still, I think one of the cool things to do is to engage with the anti-science community and ask them about their problems and concerns. Or to do a qualitative study to see if there are other factors that contribute to threatening scientists, to get a more detailed picture.”
