|
Like the NRC, The Royal Society of Canada had remained silent on the subject of Freeman despite the urging of its Women in Science committee. The executive of its Academy of Science had concluded that no action was the preferred action. In April, Lee Lorch wrote Chris Barnes, president of the Academy of Science. “I trust,” he said, “that you have seen the report in Science...concerning the scandalous situation [at CJP]....It would be equally scandalous for the Academy of Science [of] the Royal Society of Canada to remain silent about this matter. For the Royal Society of Canada...to look the other way when a scientific journal is prostituted in the fashion it has been in this case, would render the credibility of The Royal Society’s claim to be a National Academy into nothing.” Since the subject wasn’t on the agenda, Rose Sheinin, among others, planned to raise the issue from the floor at the Royal Society’s forthcoming AGM.
As a result of the lobbying of Lorch, Sheinin and others, The Royal Society finally added its voice to those censuring CJP. The motion read: “The Royal Society of Canada, which is strongly committed to the advancement of women in scholarship, hereby expresses its censure [of CJP]. In publishing [Freeman’s article], it displayed a lapse of editorial and scientific responsibility. The article is devoid of scientific content and the title is inappropriate and misleading. The Canadian Journal of Physics failed to provide a rigorous review of the article and failed to publish a timely and adequate retraction. The Royal Society of Canada deplores both the insult to working mothers and the denigration of their children implicit in the published article.”
5
The special issue of CJP, which was to have been published in the summer of 1992, didn’t appear. Translation problems, I was told when I called Ottawa. It would appear in late fall. It didn’t. During the fall, the NRC and the Royal Society of Canada announced that they would jointly sponsor a symposium on ethics in scholarly publishing to be held in Toronto in early February 1993. The special issue of CJP would be made available at the symposium.
The delays allowed the media, which had earlier merely reported on the planned special issue, to begin poking fun at the idea of a special issue. In a page one story, The Ottawa Citizen’s science writer, Shelley Page, commented, “It sounds like using a shotgun to kill a fly, but the country’s biggest research body is determined to subdue one annoying little guy named Gordon Freeman,” whom she described as a “respected” scientist. She quoted a pleased Freeman, telling her, “I’ve touched a nerve haven’t I.” Page’s article was picked up by the Canadian Press and reprinted in dozens of papers across North America. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune ran the CP story under the headline: “’Mommy Wars’ Flare in Canada.” (The report that troubled me the most appeared in my own paper, the Globe and Mail; not only did it reprint the CP story but its headline declared, “Council publishes motherhood issue.” Although the Globe had broken the story and had devoted some considerable space to it, its editors were now content to run wire copy that trivialized the issue.)
The ever-nervous NRC began to circulate the negative press clippings, almost all of which were rewrites of the CP story. In a letter to Rose Sheinin dated January 21, 1993, two weeks before the symposium was to be held, Clive Willis explained that it was “now much too late to publish a special edition of the Research Journals.” The decision to publish, he wrote, “has unintentionally contributed to further dissemination and public discussion of [Freeman’s] theories, contrary to your desires, mine, and all others concerned with the inappropriate publication of his article....The media inquiries we have lately received would indicate that the publication of a special edition will once again fuel media interest. It is our fear that not only will Dr. Freeman receive more free publicity, but we may also be criticized for continuing to enable that publicity....While it appeared to be an appropriate remedy at the time, a special edition may be stronger medicine than is warranted. A number of articles have appeared in newspapers across Canada recently...which have characterized NRC’s actions as an over-reaction. We would expect an even stronger reaction once the publication was actually issued....The Freeman affair will be discussed, among other important issues in scholarly publishing, at the Ethics in Scholarly Publishing Symposium....I think this will be a more appropriate forum to discuss the Freeman affair....”
The idea that there were principles involved that deserved defending and that the NRC could have chosen to take a pro-active stand in response to the negative and uninformed press it was getting by, say, holding a press conference attended by leading scientists, didn’t appear to have been considered. It was as if the NRC believed the principles involved were too subtle for the general public to grasp. We, the élite, Willis seemed to be saying, understand what this is all about. And it’s best that we deal with it in the way that élites always do--quietly and privately.
The Sexist Science of Gordon Freeman, continued >
|
