Is standing up for expertise a fool’s errand?

It is both sad and concerning that the disgusting behaviour that's developed on social media - that if you disagree with what someone says, it's OK to mount abusive and spiteful personal attacks against them - is spreading to academia. If you disagree with what someone says, you argue against their opinions... this is how academics should operate.

What an excellent and clear article. I am a parent, not an academic, with a son heading into Ecology and Conservation post-grad this year. Feeling the public mood (exemplified by Michael Gove, as you say) of dismissal of expert opinion, I worry twice: first, how can we hope to resolve the issues facing us when those who actually have the facts and expertise are derided; second, is my son likely to be subject to such vilification as Anna Mckie exposes here? I have no answers to my questions, which is terrifying.

One strength of this article is that nothing in it promotes the nonsense of evolution. Scientists do themselves a great disservice when they include evolutionary nonsense in articles otherwise about science. Linking good science with evolution taints the good science and helps make it suspect in the minds of the public. That the climate is changing can be demonstrated. That smoking is harmful can be demonstrated. That evolution happened/is happening can only be assumed. Further, those assumptions on which the hypothesis of evolution is based have been demonstrated (a) to be unreliable and (b) to stand against conclusions actually demonstrated by experimental science. Keeping the science separate from the evolutionary nonsense will be helpful in increasing public acceptance of the science.

Across my career, I have experienced decades of vile trolling and abuse from pro-smokers , the gun lobby, the anti-windfarm "movement", anti-vaxers and most recently, vaping advocates who oppose any meaningful regulation of ecigs. Here's a collection of some of the worst https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/handle/2123/18483/ECigTrollingFinal2.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y When your work has the potential to disrupt the goals of commercial interests, libertarian ideologues or quack cult movements, abuse sadly goes with the territory. Linda Bauld is quoted as saying that Australian researchers are currently digging "to find meetings I’ve attended to see if someone from the tobacco industry was there so they can say I am biased." I have worked in Australian tobacco control for 40 years and know almost all those working in research. Neither I nor others I have consulted about this statement have ever heard of such efforts regarding Prof Bauld. We've asked her for further information about the source of this claim. Simon Chapman Emeritus Professor, University of Sydney