Obviously the European basic science funding flagship, the
European Science Foundation (ESF) is in a sorry state if anything even akin to this can happen. I have the story from my math colleague here in Gothenburg,
Olle Häggström's blog, and he refers further to
Retraction Watch.
In short, astrophysicist
Amaya Moro-Martin published
an opinion piece in
Nature, criticising current European and EU science policies (in particular funding cuts), among many other things mentioning the ESF as an peripheral actor in the dismantling of Portuguese science institutions:
There are too many examples to list, but here are some of the most
prominent: since 2009, Italy has seen recruitment of scientists fall by
90% and the amount spent on basic research drop to nothing. In Spain,
the amount of money spent on civilian research and development has
dropped by 40%, and fewer than 10% of researchers who retire are being
replaced. Since 2011, the budget of Greek research centres and
universities has halved, with a freeze on hiring. Already reeling from
budget cuts of 50% for universities and research centres, Portugal
may now have to close half of its research units because of a flawed
evaluation process supported by the European Science Foundation.
To this, the head of the ESF’s Science Support Office, Dr.
Jean-Claude Worms reacts badly. But does he then send a reply to
Nature, or even post a comment in the open commentary field attached to Moro-Martin's article? He does not. Instead, he behaves in astonishingly fable-like similarity to what you would expect by the animal suggested by his surname, sending the following letter to Moro-Martin (originally made public
here):
Dear Amaya Moro-Martin,
The European Science Foundation hereby requests that you retract the
following allegation contained within your opinion piece published on 8
October in Nature (Volume 514, Issue 7521). [Portugal may now have to
close half of its research units] because of a flawed evaluation process
supported by the European Science Foundation. The European Science
Foundation refutes any allegation that the process was flawed and
considers that the statement cited above is slanderous, as the
independent work performed in the framework of the evaluation of FCT
research units followed the best international practices.
http://www.esf.org/serving-science/fct-rd-units-evaluation-by-esf.html.
While the European Science Foundation is cited in your paper, it is
highly regrettable that no one from our organisation was interviewed and
no request for clarification made. In addition, and as you may be
aware, the Portuguese national union for higher education has launched a
formal legal action on the evaluation process, and this has not yet
come to a conclusion. If your allegation is not publically retracted in
Nature, the European Science Foundation will be compelled to take
appropriate legal action.
Dr. Jean-Claude Worms
Head of Science Support Office European Science Foundation
jcworms@esf.org
That's right, a high representative and manager of a supposedly leading international science organisation is responding to criticism (the very blood of science) of this organisation's policies with
threat of a libel lawsuit. This is not only way lower than any slimy worm would ever venture into the manure, it is formally completely unacceptable behaviour by a person in Worms' position of office. My colleague, Olle, is overly polite about it when asking the ESF chief executive,
Martin Hynes, to have Dr. Worms' letter "retracted". My bid is this: Dr. Worms has conclusively proven that he has no place in any sort of science leadership position and should resign his office at ESF, effective immediately. If he does not, he should be be swiftly removed from this position of honour and trust, which he has so gravely abused.
Posts
