- Email: [email protected]
Boycott or not?
Letters– Boycott or not? From Michael Yudkin The Royal Society, which opposes the disgraceful decision of the University and College Union to prepare for a boycott of Israeli institutions (9 June, p 5), is a member of the International Council for Science (ICSU) – which has also condemned the boycott in the strongest possible terms. One of ICSU’s foundation stones is the principle of the universality of science: that there should be no discrimination among scientists “on the basis of such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age”. This principle of universality is crucial. First, since the advance of science is of net benefit to all humankind (even though some particular scientific advances are undoubtedly harmful), we are all the losers if gratuitous obstacles are put in its way. Second, contact between scientists in different countries can act as a powerful force against xenophobic nationalism. Once we start to see that our “enemies” are tackling the same kinds of research question as we are, we are less inclined to see them as dangerously alien. Third, judging scientific contributions by the characteristics of their authors is a perversion of the objectivity that science requires. We no longer contrast German physics with Jewish physics, as the Nazis did. If boycotts are now to be demanded in an attempt to influence the disputes in IsraelPalestine, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Tibet and Chechnya, we can wave goodbye to the universality of science and to the international collaborations from which we have all gained so much. Oxford, UK From Hilda Meers Would a boycott be admissible to free-thinking academia, or should “business as usual” continue? Business as usual gives the Israeli 22 | NewScientist | 30 June 2007
government confidence in continuing its strategy, in which preventing educational opportunities for Palestinian students plays an integral part. Restrictions include the closure of Palestinian universities, loss of access through curfews when they are reopened, checkpoints, unnecessary searches, military actions and detention without trial of students and staff. Palestinian academics have resorted to organising archaeology and chemistry classes in private homes, since students caught carrying textbooks in these subjects are imprisoned. Yet no Israeli academic institution, association or union has as yet publicly opposed their government’s racial discrimination. Every university has a military checkpoint, where visiting lecturers with foreign passports are frequently harassed or even deported. While Palestinian organisations call for a boycott – of institutions not of individuals – the opposing point of view is expressed, for example, by Mitch Simmons, campaign director for the Union of Jewish Students. As he puts it, “Academic freedom is part of the fabric of modern society. The exchange of information and the advancement of human knowledge should have no borders.” Precisely. But academic freedom must necessarily include academic freedom for Palestinians. Nor is it the case that all peoples of Jewish heritage (in which category I am proud to include myself) go along with Zionist policies, which are an abrogation of the humane values inherent in Judaism. Whitehills, Aberdeenshire, UK From Phil Bowles In arguing that there are no grounds for treating scientific boycotts as a “special case” distinct from trading or sporting bans, your editorial may miss the point being raised by
organisations such as the Royal Society in their opposition to such blanket boycotts. A political or sporting boycott is not simply a principled expression of outrage aimed at shaming the target regime into compliance. It is a pragmatic measure that acts directly by attempting to limit a government’s revenues. With no mechanism for influencing government policy, a scientific boycott of this nature would not merely be ineffective, but would seem to misunderstand the way in which boycotts are intended to bring about policy changes. The recent ban by the Australian government on cricketers playing in Zimbabwe did not close the door on games between the Australian and Zimbabwean teams in other countries, where the Zimbabwean government would not benefit financially. If this can be treated as a “special case”, allowing cooperation between blameless parties from both countries where an intolerable government will reap no rewards, why not the similar situation of collaborating with researchers who have the bad luck to belong to a politically unpopular nationality? Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Baby lip-readers From Lawrence Rosenblum You report an interesting finding that adds to the mounting evidence that infants do use visual cues when learning a
language (2 June, p 20). In addition, blind infants have difficulty acquiring certain phonological distinctions that are acoustically similar but visually distinct, such as “m” versus “n”. There is compelling evidence that infants are sensitive to audiovisual compatibility in speech and that they, like adults, cannot help but integrate visual speech information in perceiving phonetic segments. Riverside, California, US
Mouse in whose house? From Ann Hale Dan Jones asks whether the MMTV virus that causes breast cancer in mice could do the same in humans (2 June, p 38). He cites Thomas Stewart’s findings that the subspecies of mouse more prone to the MMTV virus is found in western countries where women have a higher incidence of breast cancer. But what of mouse distribution and breast cancer rates within these countries? It is well established that women in upper socio-economic classes have higher breast cancer mortality rates. For example, in the UK women in the highest socio-economic group are approximately two and a half times as likely to die of breast cancer as women in the lowest group. If the MMTV mouse virus causes breast cancer in women, could one reasonably expect greater mice density in the homes and workplaces of the socially privileged, with mouse numbers gradually diminishing in less-privileged dwellings? Redfern, New South Wales, Australia From John Cutting The distribution of breast cancer rates in Europe may correlate well with that of two subspecies of mouse, but it seems to correlate at least as well with that of two subspecies of political thought. Does Marxism-Leninism prevent tumours? And have www.newscientist.com
government confidence in continuing its strategy, in which preventing educational opportunities for Palestinian students plays an integral part. Restrictions include the closure of Palestinian universities, loss of access through curfews when they are reopened, checkpoints, unnecessary searches, military actions and detention without trial of students and staff. Palestinian academics have resorted to organising archaeology and chemistry classes in private homes, since students caught carrying textbooks in these subjects are imprisoned. Yet no Israeli academic institution, association or union has as yet publicly opposed their government’s racial discrimination. Every university has a military checkpoint, where visiting lecturers with foreign passports are frequently harassed or even deported. While Palestinian organisations call for a boycott – of institutions not of individuals – the opposing point of view is expressed, for example, by Mitch Simmons, campaign director for the Union of Jewish Students. As he puts it, “Academic freedom is part of the fabric of modern society. The exchange of information and the advancement of human knowledge should have no borders.” Precisely. But academic freedom must necessarily include academic freedom for Palestinians. Nor is it the case that all peoples of Jewish heritage (in which category I am proud to include myself) go along with Zionist policies, which are an abrogation of the humane values inherent in Judaism. Whitehills, Aberdeenshire, UK From Phil Bowles In arguing that there are no grounds for treating scientific boycotts as a “special case” distinct from trading or sporting bans, your editorial may miss the point being raised by
organisations such as the Royal Society in their opposition to such blanket boycotts. A political or sporting boycott is not simply a principled expression of outrage aimed at shaming the target regime into compliance. It is a pragmatic measure that acts directly by attempting to limit a government’s revenues. With no mechanism for influencing government policy, a scientific boycott of this nature would not merely be ineffective, but would seem to misunderstand the way in which boycotts are intended to bring about policy changes. The recent ban by the Australian government on cricketers playing in Zimbabwe did not close the door on games between the Australian and Zimbabwean teams in other countries, where the Zimbabwean government would not benefit financially. If this can be treated as a “special case”, allowing cooperation between blameless parties from both countries where an intolerable government will reap no rewards, why not the similar situation of collaborating with researchers who have the bad luck to belong to a politically unpopular nationality? Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Baby lip-readers From Lawrence Rosenblum You report an interesting finding that adds to the mounting evidence that infants do use visual cues when learning a
language (2 June, p 20). In addition, blind infants have difficulty acquiring certain phonological distinctions that are acoustically similar but visually distinct, such as “m” versus “n”. There is compelling evidence that infants are sensitive to audiovisual compatibility in speech and that they, like adults, cannot help but integrate visual speech information in perceiving phonetic segments. Riverside, California, US
Mouse in whose house? From Ann Hale Dan Jones asks whether the MMTV virus that causes breast cancer in mice could do the same in humans (2 June, p 38). He cites Thomas Stewart’s findings that the subspecies of mouse more prone to the MMTV virus is found in western countries where women have a higher incidence of breast cancer. But what of mouse distribution and breast cancer rates within these countries? It is well established that women in upper socio-economic classes have higher breast cancer mortality rates. For example, in the UK women in the highest socio-economic group are approximately two and a half times as likely to die of breast cancer as women in the lowest group. If the MMTV mouse virus causes breast cancer in women, could one reasonably expect greater mice density in the homes and workplaces of the socially privileged, with mouse numbers gradually diminishing in less-privileged dwellings? Redfern, New South Wales, Australia From John Cutting The distribution of breast cancer rates in Europe may correlate well with that of two subspecies of mouse, but it seems to correlate at least as well with that of two subspecies of political thought. Does Marxism-Leninism prevent tumours? And have www.newscientist.com