Canada found itself in hot water recently after former speaker of the House of Commons of Canada Anthony Rota accidentally invited a Nazi to an event honoring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Yaroslav Hunka was given a standing ovation by Zelkensky, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau, and the entire Canadian House of Commons for his involvement in the fight for Ukrainian independence. But Mr. Rota, who invited Hunka to the event, hadn’t been aware that Hunka had served as a Waffen-SS soldier with the (still being debated) possibility that he had been involved in the Holocaust.
Oops.
At the moment, I am working on researching and writing my new book about anthropomorphism. As I accumulate information and try to distill it into readable prose, I can pick and choose which sources I cite and which researchers or colorful characters I mention. I am essentially highlighting and promoting the work of these strangers. The risk is that some of the people I talk about could be secret Nazis. Or just run-of-the-mill bad people. Since it’s up to me to not accidently endorse a d-bag, I feel obliged to dig a bit into these people before I causally name-drop them in my book.
For example, let’s say I wanted to talk about some of the highly influential animal cognition research conducted by Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser, whose popular science books were a huge inspiration to me. Unfortunately, Hauser was found guilty of falsifying data in some of his more famous studies, and subsequently fired and ostracized from the scientific community. Luckily, I know this information, so I am not going to cite Hauer lest I 1) accidentally cite research that is known to be flawed, or 2) I tacitly endorse his behavior by mentioning his name.
But here’s the problem. There are some studies Hauser conducted that are above board, and that are important contributions to the field. So I could justify including them in the book. But should I?
This problem crops up for every potentially problematic person whose work I could cite in my book – especially if that work is vital to the study of anthropomorphism. But just because someone has had an undeniably outsized influenced on the field of study I am investigating doesn’t mean that I MUST include them in my book. Like Hauser. Or the Nobel Prize winning zoologist Konrad Lorenz, who is one of the fathers of the field of ethology, but also member of the Nazi party. There are ways to avoid mentioning these people. Or, if that is unavoidable, at least mention their problematic past.
The real risk is not so much that the people I cite are secret Nazis or fraudsters. Most people’s potential crimes are more subtle, or not crimes at all. And their shady personal lives might have had no influence on their scientific careers, so I could justify separating the art from the artist. But even these slightly-problematic individuals don’t need to make an appearance in the book. There’s just something icky about including the name of a person in my book who is known to be a violent criminal, misogynist, outspoken anti-LGBTQ meany-pants, etc. It’s my book, and I don’t want these kinds of people polluting my prose.
Luckily, I have the power to pick and chose whom I mention in my books. I don’t need to include problematic middle-aged Western white men the whole way through. I try to vet the people I mention using the old Google machine as best I can. Inevitably, I will end up mentioning someone who has a few skeletons in their closet that might one day come to light. But I am at least attempting to avoid the kind of internationally embarrassing incident that cost former speaker Rota his political career.
In any event, I thought you, my dear friends and readers, might enjoy this peek behind the curtain to see one of the less-well-known hurdles that authors have to deal with.
In other news, the paperback version of If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal is out today! Smaller, lighter, but with the exact same number of words. A technological marvel! Grab your copy today!
:
I don't see how avoiding mentions of people you deem problematic is helpful in science writing. One could also argue that by not mentioning certain researchers you're contributing to denying their alleged wrongdoing. Surely we as readers are capable of seeing you mention someone without assuming you are endorsing all aspects of their private life. It does not garner trust as a science-communicator when you omit important contributors because you deem them problematic. How is the reader to trust your prose if you omit uncomfortable facts and people, and how are you going to convince a reader that your judgement of someones character is just and fair? Charles Darwin for example married his younger cousin. Should his contribution to our understanding of the natural world be omitted because he was incestous? Should Carl von Linneus be erased for including humans in ghis categorization of living organisms by phenotype? Why not present the relevant facts and let the readers make our own judgement?
Maybe you're talking about two slightly different things, both important but that can be faced differently. One is to be aware of "non-Western" knowledge (I hate the expression) and actively seek other than middle-age-white-male... This is a duty for us when doing research and writing. Another is the politics of some of the scientists and thinkers, Western or otherwise. And maybe there you can more forcefully explain when and why you're using his/her work, if it worth using it. Your situation is not the same as the Canadian Parliament, since you're not praising his/her actions, right?