Case Study: Scientific American/Biology Online, reputation, expression, and the “urban whore”

The outset

When author Philip Hensher was recently asked by Professor Andrew Webber to write a book introduction for free, he declined to do so.  Frustrated, Webber called Hensher “priggish and ungrateful” on Facebook.  As the Guardian reports on 11 October 2013, this led to a storm of support for Hensher and lively discussion fuelled the growing frustration of authors who are increasingly expected to donate their time and skills for free. 

The outrage

Contrast this with the commotion that same weekend over at Scientific American online.  Dr. Danielle Lee was asked by one of Scientific American’s partner publications, Biology Online, to write a blog piece for them for free.  When she declined, Dr. Lee (who writes for Scientific American as The Urban Scientist) was asked angrily by the site’s editor "Are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?"

A bad enough situation, it seems to me, especially when we take note of the particularly sexualized way anger was expressed at Dr. Lee, reminiscent of the Kathy Sienna or Anita Sarkeesian attacks.  For more discussion of these attacks and discussions around gender in online spaces, see Sarkeesian’s TEDTalk on sexual harassment and cyber-mobs or Jessica Megarry’s blog from August 2013.

The outcry

Dr. Lee blogged about the experience on her Scientific American blog, and then over the weekend—controversially—Scientific American added insult to injury by removing her post, tweeting that "@sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed."

In a widely shared open letter Isis the Scientist criticized Scientific American’s actions, calling out not only the relationship between Biology Online and Scientific American but also challenging the assertion that the post was not about science and/or not appropriate.  She argues eloquently:

You see, science is about discovery, yes. But, more importantly, at its core science is about discovery with integrity. It’s about accepting data for what they are, even when they challenge our view of the world. It’s about reporting your conclusions, even when they are not popular and create conflict. Science is about chasing the truth and uncovering more of that truth with each new discovery. Not obscuring it.  I became a scientist because science is about honesty and curiosity and that little moment of excitement when you’re holding something brand new and you can’t wait to show it to the world.

I have a vision of what science should look like. When I close my eyes, I see a community where we are fascinated by the world around us. Our core value is, indeed, discovery, [t]he more senior of us extend our hand to raise up those more junior than us.  We mentor them, care for them, love them, and protect them. We respect and value that our diversity makes us stronger. We empower those folks to feel like super heroes, because they are. They really, truly are. More so than any character, these folks have the power to shape our future for the better.

What you’ve taught me today is that you do not share my values. You may post glossy, sexy pictures of science, but you are not interested in discovery. You do not value truth, honesty and integrity – the core values that I hold most dear as a scientist.  Most importantly, you did not empower my friend.  You shut her down when she shared that she had not been respected. You put the dollar before the scientist.

Scientific American’s decision to remove Dr. Lee’s post was roundly criticized by members of the scientific blogging community. Subsequently the post was restored on 14 October, along with a revised explanation indicating that the editorial decision to delete the post was based Scientific American’s inability to “…quickly verify the facts of the blog post and consequently for legal reasons we had to remove it.” In other words—to protect the reputation of the individuals involved and the site itself.

(Biology Online also published a notice that the offending editor had been fired, reiterating the collegial aims of their site, and thanking those who made them aware of the situation.)

The outcome

Reputation and trust cuts both ways.

What makes this debate something more than an internecine squabble in the blogosphere?  This was not just a polarized discussion of bloggers versus sites.  Nor was it about Dr. Lee herself. 

A significant part of what took place was negotiated at the level of public reputation and trust.  The response by the “blogosphere” made it clear not only was that Scientific American’s removal of Dr. Lee’s post was unacceptable, but that this behaviour in general was unacceptable and thus that Biology Online and perhaps all of its partners were now suspect and should be avoided as a result.  As Mika notes:

Trying to make it as a writer in the current era is as ridiculous with all the “We’ll pay you with exposure” or “Intern for 2 years and maybe we’ll hire you at minimum wage.” Working for free isn’t working. Biology isn’t my beat, but if it’s yours, beware: Biology-Online is not worth your effort.

Why do I say anything, when so many others have already said it? Because the practice of science is rough, figuring out which career matches the lifestyle you want to have, navigating industry-academia balances, and everything else. If we can share lessons with each other, it’s a bit easier to cope. Now you’ve been warned off a predatory site, know this isn’t considered normal or acceptable behaviour, and won’t be blindsided quite as hard if something like this happens to you.

These sites depend on content to drive traffic, and that traffic to drive advertising revenue.  Here is the real reputation issue at the heart of this controversy: when disputes come up that undermine the overall legitimacy of such a site within the self-same community it targets that can be fatal to the site’s very existence.

With that kind of negative momentum building, it is hardly surprising that both Biology Online and Scientific American backed down on their previous positions, mumbling mea culpas as they went…