This case, in just six days, has attracted immense attention in the blogosphere, especially science blogs. It's being discussed in other countries. When I read the science blog articles and the hundreds of comments they've provoked, I was struck by the scathing assumptions and abusive language being used by the bloggers and commentators.
Infantile name-calling seems to be the rule. "Moron," "douchebag," and "slackjaw" are the mildest of them. Posters claim that Abraham is arguing for "intelligent design" (it's never mentioned), that Abraham deserved to be fired "for refusing to do his job" (he seems to have done his job very well for eight months), and that he "ought to have known he'd have to accept evolution to work in biology" (actually, he only needs to understand the principles of the theory to discuss it intelligently, not accept them).
The derision and contempt expressed by almost all the science bloggers and commentators, all of whom clearly pride themselves on their "rationalism," is downright embarrassing to read, but it's not surprising. What happened at Woods Hole in 2004 appears to be something that happens constantly in the United States: a fatal clash between two fundamentalist ideologies.
The word "fundamentalist" is usually applied to a certain minority of Christian, but fundamentalism has nothing to do with specific beliefs. It's an attitude toward the belief system or ideology that a person holds. Every belief system and every ideology — religious, political, or philosophical — has its fundamentalists. Not all of them are extremists, although extremists by definition are always fundamentalist.
There are three identifying characteristics of fundamentalist thinking:
Absolutism
The fundamentalist doesn't consider his or her belief system to be a belief system - that is, an arbitrary way of structuring sensory input, organizing abstract thought, and interacting with the world and other minds. To the fundamentalist, his or her ideology is simply "the Truth," or "reality," or "the way things are," or "what the Bible says."
Parts of this reality may be unknown, but the system as a whole is absolute and beyond question - even beyond discussion. The fundamentalist's attachment to his or her belief system is irrational, emotional, and visceral. He or she may think it's a reasoned choice, but reason has nothing to do with fundamentalism.
Article comments
1 - Damien
Thanks for writing and publishing this. I have to say that I am a Christian but not a fundamentalist. I respect the study of science and it complements my world-view. I have run across vehement fundamental scientists (usually professed atheists) and they have less ground in fact than most cults who knock on my doors.
Thanks again for the article.
2 - duane
Good writeup, Inanna. Interesting case.
From what you've included here, I think the issue boils down to Hahn's statement:
"You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work..."
Assuming that is an accurate statement...
If a scientist refuses to publish research and discuss it in the context of a theory upon which research at the institute is conducted, that is grounds for dismissal. That part of the story is cut and dried.
Take an analogous example: Fred is a car salesman for Ford. He is also an environmentalist. He persuades customers to go shop at Honda, instead of pushing Fords. He would be fired. It would be disingenuous of Fred to claim that he was fired for his philosophical beliefs.
It does come down to funding at WHOI. It's a publish or perish world, and if Abraham won't publish in a manner that highlights the full relevance of the work to modern scientific theories, he can be replaced. The religious philosophy is not the reason for the dismissal, it's the refusal to follow through.
Whether or not he was ridiculed or cajoled or shunned by his peers and supervisors gets into different (and uglier) issues. That's all workplace relations and politics. Everyone suffers in one way or another. Womanizers, bigots, drinkers, Republicans, Mormons, nerds, sluts, bad dressers, Democrats, atheists, slobs, fashion plates, the overweight, the vain, illiterates, snobs, the overly sensitive, the brash --- all the crap by which people are judged --- lives in the workplace, everywhere, all the time.
Being disliked and/or marginalized at the personal level is not grounds for being fired, but that seems not to be the case here.
3 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
Damien--thanks for your comment. I'm not a Christian, or a trained scientist (although I have some scientific training, which isn't the same thing). But I find irrational hyperbole and rigid thinking distressing in any context. There are Neo-Pagan fundamentalists and libertarian fundamentalists and feminist fundamentalists...you name it. But the two groups who seem to have the largest, and most harmful, influence at the moment are the Christian and the scientistic fundamentalists. Unfortunately, many people seem to feel they have to defend the causes of whichever group they sympathize with, and that's how wars get started.
Duane: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree: the lawsuit does boil down to Mark Hahn's statements in the termination letter. If Hahn's statement is true, then Abraham's termination is defensible. But Abraham claims he did not refuse to do any work asked of him. It's one man's word against the other's, which is usually what leads to a lawsuit.
Your analogy is only apt if Abraham refused to conform to expectations. If that car salesman sincerely believed that Hondas are superior and more ethical cars to drive, yet sold Fords to customers to the best of his ability, he should not be fired for holding an opinion. He should be fired for underperforming, or sabotaging his employer, no matter what his motive, but his opinion is his right. To give a non-hypothetical example: I worked for ten years for a domestic violence shelter. I held, and openly expressed, many strong opinions about domestic violence that were at sharp variance with the "party line." Nevertheless, I was considered a valuable employee (albeit a gadfly) because despite my views, I followed policies and procedures and served the clients to the best of my ability.
Unfortunately, confidentiality issues probably prevent Mark Hahn and WHOI from discussing the situation in more detail. I know there is a whole other side to the story that we're not hearing.
4 - Tim
Get the facts straight Inanna!
The job posting states: "Results will be interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study."
The "subject under research" is developmental biology -- which is inextricably linked to evolutionary biology these days.
I am sick to death of ignorant pundits throwing around "fundamentalists" whenever REAL scientists demand that REAL science go on in science labs. I would suggest you stick to vampires and other ephemera, as you clearly know bugger-all about science.De
5 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
Thanks for sharing, Tim! You've demonstrated my point admirably.
6 - Christopher Rose
Inanna, your response to Tim shows that it is in fact you that is the fundamentalist and that you clearly have an agenda in writing this article in the first place. Apart from the first half of his last sentence, his comment was entirely accurate and factual.
7 - Inanna/Vyrdolak
"An agenda?" Not at all. I'm very careful not to take either side, and I say repeatedly that no outside party can possibly know what really happened based on how little information is available. I'm just discussing the social/psychological issues that relate to the lawsuit, as I see them. I thought it was an interesting story that might get readers thinking, it was timely, and I needed a topic for this week's article because I haven't finished a review book yet. So much for my agenda.
Characterizing and attacking the speaker while ignoring the matter being discussed is the informal logical fallacy, Ad Hominem, and typically the first response of any type of fundamentalist to something he or she doesn't like hearing. Of course, non-fundamentalists tend to use it, too. Reasonable thought about charged issues is not a common phenomenon. You just need to read blog comments to infer that conclusion!