Confronting the 'experts'

Whistleblowing and suppressing dissent in science

- by RICHARD HOUSE

Richard House [RH]: Can you share something of your own professional and academic journey, and how you came to be interested in the issue of dissent in medicine and science?

Brian Martin [BM]: It was the late 1970s. I was doing research in astrophysics at the Australian National University. I was also active in the environmental movement, and this was long before it became mainstream. I gradually learned about several environmental scientists and teachers whose articles had been blocked, their tenure denied, their access to data prevented, or their jobs terminated. It seemed to be a pattern. I investigated further and started writing about it and getting some publicity - this led to more people contacting me.

Over the years, my interest in the 'suppression of dissent' snowballed into a wide range of domains, such as controversies over nuclear power, pesticides, fluoridation and vaccination, all of which involve scientific and medical dimensions. In the 1990s, I became active in a new organisation, Whistleblowers Australia, and talked with many whistleblowers.

RH: It surely requires great integrity to take up such positions when one knows one's career progression will be adversely affected.

BM: For sure, there is some risk in studying dissent. My career in science never took off - I was on one-year contracts for a decade, and was even terminated a couple of times; but it's hard to be sure why, because others had difficulty too. There's one sobering aspect of supporting whistleblowers: many of them have a really hard time, losing their jobs, their careers, their money, their health. Compared to them, I've been fortunate. Most people have no idea what it's like to do what's right and then come under a relentless attack.

RH: Your 1996 book, Confronting the Experts had a great impact on me; tell us about that book.