Arts and Humanities Commons^™

Censorship And Free Speech In Scientific Controversies, Brian Martin

Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers (Archive)

Many publicly debated issues have implications for health, including smoking, pesticides, food additives, seat belts, fluoridation, vaccination and climate change. Campaigners on such issues use a variety of methods, including presenting evidence and arguments, denigrating opponents, lobbying and organising protests. In some cases, campaigners seek to censor opponents, most commonly on the grounds that their views are false and dangerous. To probe rationales for censorship, recent events in the Australian public debate over vaccination are examined. A citizens' group critical of vaccination has come under heavy attack, with pro-vaccination campaigners and politicians trying to shut down the group and restrict …

Why Do Some Controversies Persist Despite The Evidence?, Brian Martin

Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers (Archive)

The debate over climate change is relatively young while nuclear power and pesticides have been heated topics since the 1960s, and fluoridation since the 1950s. So what is it about these scientific controversies that makes them seem to go on forever?

Some campaigners despair, assuming that those on the other side simply refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence: “They must be ignorant. Or devious – they’re lying. Or they’re getting paid.”

Ignorance or psychological resistance might be relevant in some cases, but there are better explanations for why controversies persist.

Sociologists have been studying scientific and technological controversies for many …

The Myth Of The Neutral Social Researcher In Contemporary Scientific Controversies, P Scott, Evelleen Richards, Brian Martin

Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers (Archive)

According to both traditional positivist approaches and also to the sociology of scientific knowledge, social analysts should not themselves become involved in the controversies they are investigating. But the experiences of the authors in studying contemporary scientific controversies - specifically, over the Australian Animal Health Laboratory, fluoridation, and vitamin C and cancer - show that analysts, whatever their intentions, cannot avoid being drawn into the fray. The field of controversy studies needs to address the implications of this process for both theory and practice.