PRESS

As of July 2024, the [Silencing Science] tracker has documented 531 cases of censorship, information suppression, misrepresentation of scientific facts, and other policy or administrative anti-science actions in the United States.

[CSLDF] fights for the rights of scientists to conduct, publish, and discuss their research and advocate for science without the threat of political harassment, censorship, or legal intimidation.

In the wake of the 2016 election, researchers at the Columbia University Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund created the “Silencing Science Tracker.”

The fundamental problem, Kurtz says, is that institutions are often more focused on protecting themselves than their faculty members and frequently decline to provide legal counsel to their employees.

“This is not about what happened to me, it’s about what could happen to others,” Virginia Burkett, the scientist, told Nature, emphasizing that stronger protections are needed regardless of who wins the US presidential election in November.

"As scientists get more public about speaking about their research, especially about the importance of taking action on climate change, it has made a number of them targets, and there are groups out there that are trying to get them to stop talking."

For worried scientists, whether in the United States, where Donald Trump could return to power following the presidential election next November, or in France, Lauren Kurtz gives the following advice: "Be prepared, know your rights, what you can and cannot publish, for example.

Researchers from Columbia University and the nonprofit Climate Science Legal Defense Fund report that Trump’s effort to undermine scientific research included 154 documented cases of federal government censorship of scientists. That’s horrifying, and we can’t let it happen again.

The Washington DC Superior Court convicted two people on February 8 of defamation, with more than $1 million (approximately 928,000 euros) in compensatory damages. Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn claimed that climatologist Michael E. Mann had tampered with his data and compared him to a child molester.

If you’ve been following the news, you know that last week, Climate scientist Michael Mann won a million dollar award against science denial grifter (and Lounge Singer) Mark Steyn.

“It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize scientific findings, but this verdict is a strong signal that individual scientists shouldn’t be accused of serious misconduct without strong evidence,” says Michael Gerrard, a legal scholar at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law in New York City.