|
|
|
|
|
|
by elag
4532 days ago
|
|
|
Relevance. The dick outed the writer on his Twitter acoount. The writer wrote pseudonymously because of their belief that frank discussion requires freedom from professional retaliation. The outed writer then wrote not to the dick but to his employer, Phillip Campbell. That's as much as I can do to explain why I think both parties have acted to their own discredit. |
|
|
Frank discussion of scientific ideas, methods and conclusions requires a focus on those subjects, and an absolute ignorance of the personalities behind those subjects.
Where either a scientist or a party whose opinion can significantly influence a scientist's career steps over that bound and focuses on persons and politics, frank discussion of that breach may require anonymity or pseudonymity to prevent further retaliation, etc., by the influencing party or by any of their allies who may be given to the same violation of boundaries.
An influencer of some significance violated those boundaries in a public forum, though one that may not widely followed (twitter may be widely used, but individual accounts vary, of course).
A scientist wrote pseudonymously to the influencer's employer to a) ensure the employer was aware of the breach and b) to ensure that other scientists were aware of the breach, given how that influencer may affect their reputations without their knowing, since the influencer has at least once strayed across the boundary in a most public way.
Might the scientist also have written c) out of petulance? Perhaps. But that ain't relevant, because the scientist's motivation can be explained entirely and reasonably by A and B, and C is neither relevant nor necessary, because other scientists whose careers may be affected by influencer deserve to know that this person has strayed beyond their bounds, and making this known in a letter to the employer is the most effective of achieving this.