The March For Science Adopts Alarming Tactics
Taking a page from the anti-vaccine playbook was unbecoming
I admit that initially I was dismayed, disappointed and annoyed with the administrators of the March for Science secret Facebook group. Not sure how a group of over 600,000 is secret, but I digress 😊. In an unrelated post the Admins decided to mischaracterize another science advocacy group called SciMoms.
Now I’m just sad. Once again, the cover-up was worse than the crime. Instead of attempting to engage in civil evidence-based discussion regarding their actions, they used tactics often seen by groups that suppress science. Repeated deletions followed by banning. A familiar pattern seen by those out in the trenches fighting the good fight for science. Truly an unexpected turn from a group that is supposed to respect and promote science communication.
Overview
If you know anything about how science communication works, making unsubstantiated claims isn’t on the list. I proceeded to call them out on their claim, which I backed-up with evidence. Instead of discussion and clarification it resulted in my comment and others being deleted, while their mischaracterization was left to stand uncorrected. Not cool, but it could have been a mistake. I then went to another applicable post to comment.** Also deleted. Not a mistake. The administrators were activity deleting civil evidence-based comments that demonstrated their error. That is not how science communication works. It is how science communication is silenced. I’m primarily writing this missive as a learning tool for the administrators at March for Science in the hope that they will see it and use this interaction as a means to get better. There may be some sour grapes as well, as nobody likes to see their evidence-based comments repeatedly deleted or getting banned when advocating for science.
Before I dive into the details, I want to be clear. I support marching for science. I thoroughly enjoyed the first March and wrote about my experience: I marched for science and I liked it. I also run a page called Eclectic Science on Facebook, on which I’ve been corrected a time or two, so I know what it is like to have mistakes called out. Now to dive into the details with some suggestions for how it could have gone better.
The Details:
A post from Fueled by Science was shared to the March For Science Facebook group. The topic of the post was regarding fear-mongering on pesticides. As an aside the post mentions SciMoms as a good reference on GMO issues. The usual back and forth on the topic was in full swing when the Admins dropped in their unsupported and unrelated commentary:
What was particularly egregious was the use of denial. That is the language used when referring to those that are anti-vaccine, don’t accept evolution and the like. A very bold claim that SciMoms have “a history of denying the well established science on infant nutrition…” This claim is demonstrably wrong. The skepticism they speak to should have been directed at those that came to them with the accusations instead of uncritically accepting them and tossing a fellow science advocacy group under the bus.
The SciMoms have exactly one article on the topic of breastfeeding. That isn’t much of a history. The thrust of the entire article is to ensure that all infants get the nutrition they need in direct opposition to their mischaracterization. I explained as much when I replied to their above post with a link to the article. After my reply, one of the SciMoms also replied and asked them to message them if they have questions. That was two civil comments to a rather outrageous claim. I don’t have a screenshot, as who would think you’d need one in a science group that prior to this seemed to support civil evidence-based discourse?
At this point both of our replies were deleted. Commenting was also shut down for the whole thread. An opportunity was clearly missed. Even if they had some issues with the article, they could have responded with something along the lines of, our error, SciMoms are cool, we just disagree on a few points as evidence-based organizations do from time to time. Instead they deleted.
Maybe it was a misunderstanding?
I’m a benefit of the doubt kind of person. Perhaps they mistook my issue with them as initiating a discussion on infant feeding, which they didn’t want. In the announcement section of the group they have dedicated threads. One of them is titled “What Science Advocacy Actions Have You Taken This Week?”. That seem to be the perfect place to add a comment suggesting that the Admins for the March For Science group could improve their science advocacy by seeking clarification before making unwise comments. See below for my second comment screen shot. The next morning, I woke to find that comment deleted.
Ever the optimist I tried again. Perhaps they missed my tie into science advocacy since I put that last. This time I’d put it up-front.
“SciMoms is an excellent group, so my science advocacy this week is to take the March For Science to task for unjustly maligning another science group in the hope that they will learn from their mistake.” See my third comment screenshot.
It was not the charm. The comment was up for perhaps 20 seconds before it was deleted. I then found myself in a time-out. The March For Science Admins were not fond of having their mistakes pointed out. As I said earlier, a quick mea culpa acknowledging that SciMoms is a good science advocacy group with which they have some disagreements on breastfeeding is all it would take. Even a discussion where they tried to defend their position would have been better.
There was no misunderstanding.
I was not optimistic, but I held out hope that the Admins in the group wouldn’t complete the circle of science suppression tactics and boot me from the group just for politely pointing out their mischaracterization of a science advocacy group I admire. I even started the post with a compassionate request.
“March For Science, please don’t delete my plea on behalf of science advocacy again.
You made a mistake in mischaracterizing SciMoms. It happens. They are a great science advocacy group. Fantastic articles on vaccines, GE crops and many other topics. One of which was breastfeeding where they clearly advocate for all infants getting access to nutrition in contrast to your mischaracterizations.” See screen shot number four.
Within seconds I was removed from the group. Such a shame. I’ve been in that group lending a hand in science discussions since it was first formed.
If you’ve stayed with me this far and belong to the March For Science group, I’m guessing you have also picked up on the irony of my comments across two threads and multiple days being silenced. The Admins at the March For Science group are pretty hands off. They let comments critical of climate science (not many), anti-vaccine comments (a lot), and chemophobia comments (also a lot) stand with no push back from the Admins. Here, I try to engage them in discussion on what was obviously a bad call on their part and I’m immediately shut down and expelled from the group.
Even now I’m extending an olive branch. As I said I hope this can be a learning tool. If March For Science reached out to me I’d be happy to rejoin the group and start a discussion on science communication and how to respond when reasonable dissent is made to a post by Admins. This blog could be the jumping off point.
In another bit of irony, if a local March is organized near me next year I will go. I love science and over the years I’d like to think I’ve been welcomed by the SciCom community for my small efforts. It means a lot to me to get out there and visibly show support for science. I would be marching for science, and at least as it stands now, not for, but in spite of the March For Science organization.
My apologies if the tone was uneven. I did my best to lay out the facts of the interaction, but as I said at the beginning, some of my disappointment might leak through.
Last message for March For Science.
My final thoughts are directed at those in leadership at March For Science. Your organization has reach. There are hundreds of thousands of people in your group and that like your page. To paraphrase a lesson learned by that famed lover of science, Peter Parker, with great reach comes great responsibility. Carelessly besmirching other science advocacy groups, especially small ones who are still building a following, hurts us all. If something is wrong, extend them a helping hand. If you’ve made a mistake, admit it and make amends. It may well be that evidence-based disagreements will remain but everyone doing the good work of accurately communicating science should be encouraged. Please be more careful in your characterizations going forward, your words have a big impact.
If you believe your positions are correct, defend them. That is what civil evidence-based discussions are all about. Don’t silence those that challenge your statements in good faith. That never looks good, and ultimately it hurts you as well. It is through civil evidence-based discussion that we can learn new things and get better at communicating science.
SciMoms response.
As you might imagine, SciMoms got wind of this and posted their own brief response. I’d be remiss if I didn’t include it. You can find it here.
By happenstance one of the SciMoms’ contacted me as I was finalizing this, to say a former staff member from March For Science let them know that they were in disagreement with the volunteer admins. That was nice to hear, unfortunately they were not in a postion to help. A friend who is still in the group checked for me, and at the time I’m publishing this, the comment unjustly critical of SciMoms is still in the thread, and as far as they can tell there has been no public acknowledgement that March For Science Admins screwed up. And of course, I’m still banned. Which is too bad as them making amends would be a great postscript for this piece.
Updates:
5/24/19: It is worse than I thought
-This blog was posted as a comment in the group by at least one person. It garnered a charitable reply where the person suggested that perhaps the Admins had confused the evidenced based SciMoms with a non-evidenced based Mom group (there are a lot). The comment was deleted, and the OP was banned.
-I had recently added a friend to the group. It would appear that guilt by association was sufficient to get them banned. They are no longer in the group.
6/14/19: Corresponding with a leader of The March
-Through the March website I contacted Valorie Aquino with my concerns. We had a nice exchange where she basically indicated the group was on their own, but she would pass on my concerns and suggestions as the national leadership works on a better supported and structured social media team.
6/28/19: Some hearsay
- I’ve gotten a bit of feedback that other people have been arbitrarily banned for trying to engage in civil evidence-based disagreements with the Admins. I’m no longer in the group so I can’t confirm this and wouldn’t blame anyone for taking this with a grain of salt, but it makes me feel a bit better because it demonstrates a pattern of behavior. It wasn’t just me.
9/17/19: Hope and then disappointment
Periodically I would check to see if I could see the group again, just in case my ban was lifted. A few days ago, I could see the group again. My ban had been lifted! I also noticed that the group had changed from secret to closed. My optimistic take on these events was that some of the work Valorie spoke to had yielded results. I also noticed that Valorie was an Admin and took that as a good sign. I immediately asked to re-join the group and sent Valorie an e-mail noting that it looked like the group had gotten back on track. Alas, that was short-lived.
After being in “joining” limbo for a couple of days I was banned. I sent another e-mail to Valorie expressing my disappointment and asking if she could use her pull as an Admin to straighten things out.
No such luck. She indicated that while she was an Admin she was only there as a hook to the national organization. She forwarded my concerns to Clayton the lead Group Admin who had told her of some repeated guideline violations. Which was confusing, as I’ve shown that to be demonstrably false. The only possible violation would be to repeatedly try and correct a mischaracterization of another science group. Civil evidence-based discourse is supposed to be a feature not a bug.😉 I doubt I’ll hear back from Clayton as it appears that he is the one who gave Valorie the mistaken information; it looks like the Admin culture at the March For Science group remains unchanged.
Now to vent just a little. The guideline violation accusation is particularly galling. Even if there was a violation, quality groups will issue a warning and point the offender to the rule violation, then ban or mute upon further violations. You’ll note that while this whole mess went down, I was never contacted by an Admin, not once. What I outlined above for quality groups was just one of the suggestions I gave to Valorie for helping the Admin team for the future. I guess it didn’t take. In the larger scheme of things this is just a Facebook Group with a parent organization that has allowed them to go astray. It shouldn’t bother me. The annoyance sticks with me because I was an early March supporter, one of the first wave to join that group. I also advocated for them to people who saw other shortcomings. It stings a little when something you had such high hopes for falls so flat. Finally, who cares about me it is was the unjust treatment of SciMoms that was important. Granted I lost sight of that as well with my last exhange only being about my ban. Vent over.
Screenshots for comments 2–4:
You will note that my comments were a tad verbose. When engaged in science communication I tend to speak to the audience as much or more than the folks I’m directly engaged with. Since my prior comments were deleted there was a lot of information to fill in for the audience.
Second comment screen shot:
Third comment screenshot:
Fourth and final comment screen shot:
** I went looking for another appropriate post because the group has post approval turned on. Nobody can post without first going through the Admins and I suspected they wouldn’t approve my post. It is also a huge group where they can be inundated with posts so there was also a good chance they wouldn’t even see it.
