Cronkite school of journalism at
Arizona state university.
>> A long legal battle ended
yesterday when a jury found two
conservative writers had defamed
the prominent climate scientist
Michael man, awarding him $1
million in damages.
Amid increasing attacks on
science, William brangham looks
at what the verdict means.
>> Over his long career, Michael
man has been an influential
contributor to climate research
as well as becoming one of the
most effective communicators
about climate change's impact.
He's also face considerable
black -- backlash.
In 2012, a policy analyst
compared him to a child sex
abuse her, saying instead of
molesting children, he molested
and tortured data.
Another called his work
fraudulent.
He sued them both and yesterday
after 12 years, he won his case.
Turning now to another prominent
scientist who is also endured
this kind of vitriol.
He's the Dean of the national
school of tropical medicine at
Baylor college of medicine and
codirector of the Texas
children's hospital center for
vaccine development.
It is great to see you again.
I know you are in very different
fields.
I have to imagine there was a
small sense of victory you must
have felt seeing Michael man
when the defamation case.
>> Absolutely.
The attacks, another is a
convergence of the attacks on
climate science with the attacks
on biomedicine.
In some cases, it is coming from
the identical forces.
I think the message for this
week is -- remember, the attacks
denigrating science and trying
to undercut science both for
climate science and biomedicine
is not just about the science.
It has now gone the next step to
attack the scientist and portray
us as public enemies.
That really starts to get
dangerous.
Both Michael and I are stocked
regularly.
We received threats online,
phone calls to the office,
sometimes physical
confrontations.
It has gone to the new level.
I think the reason the court
victory is important is it sends
a signal that while it is fine
to disagree with the science and
express skepticism, it crosses a
line when you are attacking
scientists and putting us in
danger.
>> Can I ask what that is like?
You spend your career trying to
create medicines to help
humanity, which you have clearly
done.
Then to be attacked like that
and to worry about threats to
your life, wonder what that is
like as a professional?
>> It can be demoralizing.
I did my MD and phd 40 years ago
to make vaccines for global
health affordable for the world
that the big pharma companies
would not make.
We made vaccines for parasitic
inventions, reaching 100 million
people or more.
I always consider it something
that is important and meaningful
to make the world better.
The idea that you would be
attacked for it, it can be
demoralizing.
But second, to actually feel
like you are in danger and some
level, your family is in danger,
that is really worrisome.
That is why the court ruling
this week is kind of a line in
the sand to say stop.
Trying to disagree, but when you
attack scientists, you are
affecting not only the
scientific field, but sending
chilling messages to future
generations of scientists that
this is not something you want
to go into.
>> Michael man said he hopes
that this sends a message that
falsely attacking a scientist is
not protected speech.
Is it your sense this kind of a
victory will serve to blunt that
army of people who are sniping
at you all?
>> I don't know.
Is it a one off thing or will it
be more enduring?
I think it is too soon to tell.
First of all, resorting to the
courts is nobodies first choice.
In Michael's case, he had to go
through 12 years of this.
Who wants to do that?
If you gave me the choice, do I
want to spend my day developing
a new human hookworm vaccine
that is looking promising to
benefit the hundreds of millions
who suffer from hookworm anemia
on the africom -- African
continent, or do I want to make
cold calls to plaintiff
attorneys?
It is no contest.
I want to be a scientist.
This is saying something else.
We don't have the systems in
place to protect scientist.
And having to find attorneys and
suing people is nobodies first
option.
>> I have to mention a lot of
these attacks that have come
anonymously driven has become
even harder to defend yourself.
Michael man had at least two
people who signed their names to
the vitriol they spewed at him.
>> It is coming from all
sectors.
It is coming from foreign
actors.
We know there are bots and
trolls coming from Putin's
Russia.
In some cases, anonymously.
Other cases it is coming from
bloggers and podcasters who are
making a living targeting
science and scientists.
D now it has even gone the
next level, where we are
actually seeing two U.S.
Senators boasting about how they
target scientists.
Same with some members of
congress from the house freedom
caucus.
And there is a whole system in
place at Fox News to amplify
this.
The point is there is an entire
ecosystem of attacks on science,
which I kind of understand, but
also the scientists.
When they start portraying us as
public enemies, that puts us in
danger.
>> Good to talk to you, thank
you for being here.