Mixing Science and Politics

Boycott of Israeli scientists sparks debate, dissent, and subtle unexpected effects | By Catherine Zandonella

D.F. Dowd

Joel Hirsch, an Israeli biochemist at Tel Aviv University, has one more thing to worry about when he submits a scientific paper for publication: the possibility that scientists who disagree with his country's policies will shun his work. "My nightmare scenario is that the paper gets sent to a reviewer who might have an axe to grind about Israeli scientists," Hirsch says.

In the year since some British researchers called for a boycott of Israeli scientists, funding agencies have largely rejected such appeals. A subtler, possibly no less-damaging kind of boycott has surfaced, in which researchers express their outrage with the Israeli government by refusing to interact with Israeli scientists. As a result, when a talk is canceled, or a faculty member receives no reply from a European colleague, Israeli scientists can't help but think the worst. "I can't be sure if it was because I am Israeli," says Orly Reiner, a neuroscientist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, about the cancellation of her invited talk at a research conference in France.

SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE? No one knows how many quiet acts of protest Israeli scientists endure. Nevertheless, boycotts galvanize scientists into political camps and provide endless fodder for the debate over scientists' roles in politics. Boycotters say it is morally wrong to sit on the sidelines. Opponents say that science should sit above politics. "Any boycott that impedes the open flow of information is akin to book burning," says Susan Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain.

Critics of the boycott, who nevertheless agree with its goals, say it is unlikely to change Israeli policies, and it may backfire. "The boycott sends the wrong message because it breeds resentment," says Idan Segev, the David & Inez Myers Chair in Computational Neuroscience at Hebrew University, Jerusalem. "We should be focusing our anger at the Israeli government." He says academics can be outspoken critics of the government. "Scientists are the last people you want to boycott."

This is especially true in the current political climate, many Israelis say, because of what some describe as an anti-intellectual bent to the government led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Minister of Education, Limor Livnat, has been locked in a power struggle with academic leaders for more than a year.¹

Emanuel Farjoun is one of ten Israeli scientists who signed the original petition calling for the boycott. "I think international pressure should be put on Israel to respect the rights of Palestinians," says Farjoun, a mathematician at Hebrew University. Nevertheless, Farjoun believes scientists should not act individually. "Scientists should collaborate on an individual level with colleagues all over the world, regardless of the government under which they live," Farjoun says.

But those who support the boycott say that such action is one of few avenues open to scientists who wish to dissent. Palestinian scientists express particular concern. Mazin Qumsiyeh, associate professor of genetics at Yale University, says a boycott against Israeli science may have its downsides, but the situation requires a radical intervention. "It is like the patient is dying of cancer and you are saying that we cannot ask for major radiation or therapy because it might inconvenience the patient." Qumsiyeh's parents live in the occupied West Bank.

THE BOYCOTT'S EFFECT Boycott instigators say that they did not expect a direct effect. "I never assumed the boycott, as such, would actually change the policies of the Israeli government," says Steven Rose, director of the Brain and Behaviour Research Group at The Open University, UK, who initiated the call for a boycott with his wife Hilary Rose, then a professor of sociology at City University, London. "We wanted to make a protest and raise the issue, and in that sense the effect has been quite dramatic, far more than what we anticipated."

The Roses' petition, which appeared in the London newspaper The Guardian, called for the European Union and the European Science Foundation (ESF) to impose a moratorium on funding until Israel abides by United Nations resolutions and opens peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently endorsed a road map for peace, which is supported by the United Nations, European Union, United States, and Russia.²

D.F. Dowd

The petition sparked a few widely publicized incidents. A gene therapy researcher who requested a plasmid from a Norwegian researcher received a reply saying: "Due to the present situation in the Middle East, I will not deliver any material to an Israelitic [sic] university." In another incident, two Israeli reviewers at the Journal of Translation were asked to resign. Rose is not bothered that the call for what was essentially an economic boycott has acquired a more personal nature. "This is an act of individuals," says Rose, adding that he refuses to review grant applications from Israelis or to cosponsor meetings with Israeli academics.

The funding denials and outright sanctions have failed to materialize. The ESF rejected the suggestion that it stop funding Israeli scientists, and petitioners did not try to persuade US science agencies to consider such a move. Members of Britain's two university teachers' unions, both of which originally supported the boycott, reconsidered the issue and voted down boycott resolutions in May.

The issue remains active on France's university campuses. Several universities have passed resolutions calling for the European Union to suspend funding of Israeli scientists. Some of these were later rescinded after prominent scientists protested. The French Ministry of Science, in a move designed to show support for Israeli science, signed a new cooperative agreement with Israel in April.

Even if the threats to the overall pursuit of science do not materialize, the boycott could chip away at the quality of science in Israel. Since the beginning of the recent unrest in Israel two years ago, the number of scientists visiting Israel has fallen, due mainly to fears for personal safety, says Andrew Marks, director of the Center for Molecular Cardiology at Columbia University and founder of an antiboycott group called International Academic Friends of Israel. Younger scientists are the most vulnerable because they depend on getting papers published and meeting influential leaders in their disciplines. Marks' group is helping organize a stem cell conference in Israel during the month of June.

Some scientists assert that Israeli academics are not doing enough to bring about a peaceful solution to their country's crisis. "South African academics were much more active in protesting the apartheid government than what I've seen from my Israeli colleagues," says Rodney Douglas, a South African and the director of the Institute of Neuroinformatics in Zurich. "In matters of such importance, one must make a stand."

The worst danger is not to individual Israeli scientists, boycott opponents say, but rather to the culture of open communication among researchers. Scientists like Segev, Marks, and Greenfield want scientific work to be judged on its merits, not on the basis of the researcher's citizenship. Any boycott or other action that puts such confidence in jeopardy has the potential to do lasting damage, the opponents say, not just to its intended target, but to the field of science itself.

Catherine Zandonella (catzan@nasw.org) is a freelance writer in New York City.

	TOWARD AN INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON SCIENCE AND POLITICS Should scientists engage in science boycotts? Since last year's call for a boycott against Israeli academic institutions, the debate continues in the pages of major academic journals over which should come first--science or politics. The International Council for Science (ICSU), an organizational body of nearly 100 scientific societies worldwide, has condemned the use of boycotts, standing behind its 1931 policy of the "universality of science," which says that all scientists are free to practice science without any discrimination on the basis of citizenship, religion, race, etc. This "universality principle" is long overdue for an update, and in March 2003, ICSU's Standing Committee on Freedom in the Conduct of Science convened to address the issue. The committee agreed to a two-part universality principle addressing both discrimination and freedom to practice science. The wording will not be finalized until later in the year, but the new principle lists action points for the national academies, rather than merely endorsing the nebulous concept of scientific freedom. Such actions could include public opposition to boycotts or governmental lobbying against visa restrictions for scientists. "Signing up for the principle is not just a minor commitment on paper," says Carthage Smith, ICSU's deputy executive director. "It must have practical aspects to it, if this is to be taken seriously." Once the new principle is adopted, ICSU does not intend to let it sit on the shelf. Few scientists knew that the 1931 principle existed, despite challenges to intellectual freedoms in World War II. This time, Smith says, ICSU will encourage its members (the national academies) to promote the principle among universities.

Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues?
Not recommended		1		2		3		4		5	Highly recommended
Please register your vote

©2003, The Scientist Inc.

Previous | Next