In the last week, the area of study known as herpetology (the study of reptiles and amphibians) has been in the midst of a very acidic debate, and it has nothing to do with the venomous animals that are normally the subject of research.
On the last 10th, the Reptile Database website, which concentrates information on all previously described species of reptiles, released its newsletter to the portal’s subscribers and contributors —mostly herpetologists, researchers from nearby areas and students interested in these animals— with the more recent additions of species to the list, naming updates and an unusual political message.
“Normally, we don’t take a political stand in this newsletter, but with the invasion of Ukraine, we feel it’s necessary. [O presidente da Rússia] Vladimir Putin went too far with the invasion of Ukraine. As a form of protest, we have removed over 1,000 Russian articles from this version of the list, the majority of articles published or produced by Russian authors.”
And, despite recognizing that there would be “collateral damage”, mainly from scientists of other nationalities who collaborated with such authors, the message also said that “it did not wish to ‘punish’ Russian colleagues, but to remind them that war can only be stopped inside Russia itself”.
“Boycotts around the world make it clear that Russia is isolating itself globally. […] We hope that Russian academia (including herpetologists) will talk to their colleagues and the political elite about how such an invasion is generating global Russophobia and that it will create a massive rebound effect and force the state to withdraw troops from Ukraine.” text.
However, the political activism of the site’s editor, Peter Uetz, a German herpetologist and professor at Commonwealth Virginia University in the United States, was not received positively by his peers.
The responses that followed were harshly critical of the decision, classified as “taking science and scientists hostage to war”, “practicing censorship”, “biased” and that “punishes scientists and is irrelevant to Putin or in the political context of the war”.
Many even said that they would stop citing the database, the main source of information on reptiles, containing more than 11,000 species with data on distribution, taxonomy (species name and which group it belongs to) and photos for identification.
One of the first to respond was Jean-François Trape, a researcher at the Research Institute for Development (IRD) in Dakar, Senegal. “It is a shameful decision, which I condemn. Every scientist as an individual has the right to have their opinions, but it is up to science to produce knowledge, not to be a judge,” he told sheet.
Last Wednesday (16), an update on the same portal said that the removal was temporary and that “Russian articles will be back for next weekend — no later than Sunday the 20th”.
Asked what motivated him, Uetz said it was “a difficult decision”. “Removing the articles was a sign of protest, and it was not my intention to punish anyone or practice discrimination. I wanted to speak to them as citizens and remind them that this war does not only affect Ukrainians, but the entire world, especially the Russians themselves. “
The herpetologist said he was still surprised by the strong negative reaction. “We received a lot of criticism and even threats. It was shocking to see people accusing us of racism and discrimination, but we also received several messages of support, although most were against our ‘ban on articles’.”
For herpetologist and professor at the Federal University of Alagoas (Ufal), Luisa Diele-Viegas, the removal of articles promotes a setback, even if momentary, in scientific knowledge. “It doesn’t work as a protest because scientific articles are not produced for individual purposes, they are produced for the advancement of science in a certain theme. Other works that would need these articles in the period in which it [Uetz] determined the removal of the information will be harmed”, he says.
Another point raised is how such attitudes can be similar to an act of censorship. “Social networks have become an extremely toxic environment, and it is even difficult to differentiate between a legitimate criticism on a certain subject and a cancellation. In this case, Russian scientists, not the government, suffered,” says the researcher.
Also herpetologist and political scientist Scott Thompson says that calling the act censorship is correct, but the situation is more serious than that. “What he [Uetz] did is, politically, a sanction, and even temporary sanctions are powerful political tools. The Reptile Database is not in a position to put pressure on anyone who has any influence over the situation in Ukraine,” he said.
Uetz, however, refutes criticism of practicing censorship, and says the move was not intended to protest the government specifically. “The removal was not a protest against the government, it was a way of attracting attention to the issue. As citizens and scientists, we have a certain social responsibility. Most scientists opposed to Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro did nothing to prevent it. them from being elected. It is our responsibility also to inform our people what the consequences are if certain politicians are elected.”
On this subject, Diele-Viegas says that it is the same as punishing Brazilians for the decisions of the government of Jair Bolsonaro (PL) on indigenous peoples and the Amazon. “Imagine if the international scientific community decided to boycott Brazilian science because of the acts carried out by the government. This would harm Brazilian science solely and exclusively”, he says.
Trape, from the IRD, says he doesn’t agree with this kind of political activism either. “The history of humanity has always been a consequence of wars and conflicts. By this logic, we would have to boycott authors, athletes and artists from all countries, since the Cro-Magnon man. Furthermore, in the last 30 years the United States has been responsible directly or indirectly for the deaths of more civilians and soldiers than Russia, and there have never been sanctions,” he said.
For Uetz, there are both arguments for and against taking actions like this, and that a more balanced view is often missing from the virtual debate. “Actually, it could be more effective if a coalition of scientists protested against obviously bad political decisions, but it all depends on the circumstances. No one should suffer for their political elite, but we are all affected by our rulers,” he said.
