Letters: Academic Boycotts

Steven Rose makes his case for an academic boycott of Israel in response to the situation of Palestinian scientists.

Academic boycott would damage chances for peace

Out in the cold: Academic boycotts and the isolation of South Africa: Haricombe, Lorraine J. & Lancaster, F.W. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press, 1995. 158 pp. $29.50 (ISBN 0-878-15067-6)

The academic boycott and human health

S cience often finds itself intertwined with politics. Sometimes that is because science has important consequences for society and thus generates strong partisan disagreement, as in the contemporary international debates over stem cells and cloning. At other times, it happens because political movements seek support from scientific arguments and recruit experts to make them. These entanglements, although not always welcome, are an inevitable consequence of the fact that science matters. Occasionally though, scientists drag politics into science by the heels, rather than the other way around. That's what's happening now, as a largely European movement urges a scientific boycott to punish Israel for its recent military actions against Palestinian cities in the West Bank. Academic boycotts, of course, are not new: Many U.S. and European professors, including scientists, declined to visit institutions and colleagues in South Africa in the 1980s to protest against apartheid. Whether that was preferable to continued scientific engagement is doubtful, but the question of whether to visit a nation or to decline out of one's political convictions is plainly a matter on which an individual is free to follow his or her conscience. But some of the practices now emerging are quite different and deserve careful attention from the scientific community. In a case recently brought to Science 's attention, an Israeli researcher asked an author of papers in two peer-reviewed journals to supply cells from a clone used in expression analyses. The author declined, citing her institution's protests against the recent Israeli military actions. It was a particularly ironic refusal, because the research being conducted by the group in Israel involves a collaboration with Palestinian scientists that is aimed quite directly at benefiting Palestinians. The author's refusal is a clear violation of the policies in place at most journals and commonly understood in the scientific community. When authors submit a manuscript, they make a commitment to supply cells, special reagents, or other materials necessary for verification. They are not free to violate that commitment once their paper has been published. Science 's Instructions to Contributors set out the rule this way: “Any reasonable request for materials and methods necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.” On occasion, we have had to encourage compliance by interceding with authors on behalf of persons requesting materials. After the Israeli scientist was refused the clone by the author, he contacted the editors of both journals in which the paper had appeared. One didn't reply; the other contacted the publisher, Ken Plaxton at Elsevier. Plaxton replied: “We do not have, nor wish to have, any influence on personal decisions made by contributors to our journals and cannot, I am afraid, in this instance help you further.” That, it seems to us, is an inadequate response. The refusenik's rationale has two parts. First it says, in effect, that the government of Israel has committed a morally repugnant act; part two asserts that this justifies the cancellation of an obligation to the entire scientific community. The first claim would be sure to stir up vigorous debate in most places; but we don't need to get into that, because the second part is so unimpressive. Its essential claim is that one's personal political convictions trump all other commitments and values. We've heard that before, and we don't buy it. As we have reported from time to time, a National Research Council committee is currently studying rules governing access to data and materials. At a workshop in February, the standard for sharing these received strong endorsement; indeed, it may be extended to materials requested for further work, not merely for verification. Science , believing that the consensus on this issue is firm, will continue to insist that authors have an obligation to share material—cell lines, knockout mice, reagents, etc.—with readers who request them, unless such transfers are prohibited by laws or regulations, such as those designed to deter bioterrorism. We will continue to intercede with authors who refuse: first with persuasion and then, if necessary, by imposing penalties relating to future publication. Perhaps there are plausible excuses for failure to comply with the sharing requirement, like “We ran out,” or “The dog ate my culture.” But “We don't like your government” just won't do.

Victimhood, Intersectionality, and the Debate on Academic Boycott in an Age of Impending Illiberalism

This month, Howy Jacobs draws lessons from the Vietnam War and Soviet Russia to answer the question: is an academic boycott ever relevant and appropriate?

In relation to the debate about academic boycott and freedom,1 2 it seems relevant to record another way in which the refusal to address the voluminous and independent evidence of...

David Lloyd, Karma R. Chávez, “The American Studies Association and the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel,” December 18, 2013, Journal of Civil and Human Rights, Vol. 5, Palestine on the Air (2019), pp. 79-97

Jewish Boycotters of Israel: How the Academic Boycott Began (2003)

Introduction to Academic Boycotts

The international Changing Academic Profession (CAP) research project is currently surveying the academic profession in 22 countries. At the planning conference of this study, three emphases in the contemporary professional environment of academics have become particularly persuasive: relevance, internationalisation and management. As part of the international research team of the CAP research project, the authors have applied the questionnaire of the CAP survey (which measures academics’ experiences and responses to these three trends) to a sample of the South African academic profession. The results show that while the South African academic profession has made the mind-shift from the traditional conceptualisation of the university as an “ivory tower institution”, rather detached from society in its pursuit of truth, to an institution relevant to the concrete and immediate needs of society, the profession could thus far not succeed in giving practical effect to this changed concept. While the South African academic profession has internationalised rapidly during the first decade after the repeal of the international academic boycott against South Africa, to the point where it has become more internationalised than its colleagues abroad, it has been losing ground again during the past few years. It is in its relationship with management that the biggest cause of concern for the South African academic profession lies. This research indicates that the South African academic profession finds itself in a highly prescriptive environment, over which it has little influence, and which it does not find very supportive of its teaching and research activities. In conclusion, follow-up research aiming at addressing these problems is recommended.

Apartheid and the academic boycott of South Africa.

The call for a cultural and academic boycott of Israel that was launched by Palestinian civil society in 2004 represents a decisive turning point in the long-time Palestinian struggle for social justice and academic freedom and the broader struggle for Palestinian self-determination. Alongside petitions, worldwide demonstrations and other national and global advocacy initiatives, as well as a vigorous debate in the alternative and occasionally also the mainstream media, substantial scholarly literature has emerged. This literature introduces legal and moral arguments that underpin the broader call by Palestinian civil society in 2005 for ‘boycotts, divestment and sanctions (hereinafter “BDS”) against Israel until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights’. This essay builds on some of my earlier reflections and reviews six books (some in more detail than others) from among a growing pool of literature addressing the Palestinian calls for BDS, and the legal and moral justifications that reinforce these calls. I will explore the way in which the authors explain a way out of the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians and develop two positions that emerge from their contributions. Firstly, robust legal arguments, especially if accompanied by moral clarity, can provide a rigorous normative basis for why BDS against Israel is justified. Second, irrespective of one’s view regarding BDS, legal explanations alone can be rendered meaningless and can lead to highly misleading conclusions if they are not grounded in a social and political context. This essay will conclude that any discussion on international law and the morality of BDS must critically engage with not only the politics of law and legal institutions, but also the politics of resistance.

recognised or treated properly.As there is no widely accepted treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis as an "organic" disorder it is important to recognise and treat any reversible illness, particularly if patients face "a long period of physical incapacity ... from ten to twenty years."'Physical and psychological assessment of patients with suspected myalgic encephalomyelitis may help to prevent more suicides in patients with this disorder.' 1 Ramsay AM.Post-viral fatigue syndrome: the saga of Royal Free disease.