Rebuttal of Science article

Quiz for 410 Ethics in Anthropology

Below are statements extracted from the article by Charles C. Mann, July 8, 2005, “A New Skirmish in the Yanomamo Wars,” Science 309:227-228.

QUIZ - True or False

_____ 1. “...the AAA membership voted 846-338 to rescind the association’s report on the charges, which were leveled almost 5 years ago in journalist Patrick Tierney’s book Darkness in El Dorado.”

_____ 2. “...the task force’s 325-page final report exonerated Chagnon of the most serious charges....”

_____ 3. “We were not attempting to mount a defense of Mr. Chagnon.” [statement by Daniel Gross regarding the Referendum and two publications co-authored with Thomas Gregor].

_____ 4. Chagnon was subjected to a process in which he “had no way of defending himself.”

_____ 5. There was a “... strong rejection of the task force report....” by the AAA membership’s vote on the referendum.

_____6. Chagnon’s critics are all part of the “postmodern flank” and “believe that science is impossible.”

_____ 7. “...ethical charges” are being used “as a social and political weapon” against Chagnon.

_____ 8. “...the AAA task force may actually have “worsened the plight of the Yanomamo....”

_____ 9. “... as a consequence of AAA actions” the Venezuelan government has shut off access to the Yanomamo by “researchers who might be more genuine and effective in their efforts to help them.”

____ 10. This article in the major journal of science in the U.S.A. provides accurate information on the subject it discusses.

______________________________________________________________________________________

The correct answer to every one of these ten questions is FALSE! Here are the reasons in turn why each one is false. [Anyone can read the original article to confirm that the extracted statements have not been distorted in any way].

1. The AAA membership voted to rescind the AAA administration’s approval of the report. The AAA membership did not vote to rescind the report itself. This is also clear if one reads the original referendum available on the AAA website.

2. There were numerous and diverse serious charges that were confirmed by the Task Force and other investigations. Moreover, the Task Force did not investigate all of the charges, such as the one originally made in Chapter 13 of Brian Ferguson’s book Yanomami Warfare: A Political History (1995); namely, that Chagnon’s field activities generated conflict and violence among the Yanomami.

3. The Referendum specifically denies that it has anything to do with the guilt or innocence of Chagnon and asserts that it is only concerned with the faulty procedure of the Task Force. In fact, not one of the defenders of Chagnon, let alone Chagnon himself, has ever admitted any serious wrong doing. Instead, they have repeatedly spread misinformation and disinformation to detract attention from the ethical issues involved, with the exception of some weak statements by Raymond Hames and Kim Hill in the book edited by Robert Borofsky, Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn From It (2005). The ethical problems with the behavior of such supposed academics and scientists should be obvious and condemned.

4. Chagnon was invited to directly face Patrick Tierney in a panel discussion at the 2000 annual meetings of the AAA and failed to do so. Chagnon was invited to communicate with the Task Force and failed to do so. However, Chagnon did post some brief comments in the online discussion and debate about the Preliminary Report. In addition, his long-time associate, Raymond Hames, was a member of the Task Force until he resigned, supposedly to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest, something that was obviously a problem from the outset. In effect, Hames served as a surrogate for Chagnon on the Task Force. For example, his resignation led to the failure of the Task Force to consider the allegation mentioned in #2 above even though this was part of their charge from the top administration of the AAA and one of the most serious charges of all.

5. Less than 10% of the members of the AAA voted on the three referendums, and fewer voted for the referendum in question than the other two. This is hardly a strong rejection of anything and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Furthermore, the allegation at the heart of the Referendum that, the AAA Task Force did not allow Chagnon “due process,” sets up a strawman argument in false legal terms. The Task Force was never intended to be, nor could it ever be, any kind of a legal proceedings. It is far more realistic to view the Task Force as a truth commission. The referendum in question attacked the integrity of the AAA Executive Board and so far the leadership of the Association has failed to act as it should to challenge the untrue allegations about the organization.

6. The vast majority of Chagnon’s critics have never been known as postmodernists based on their publication record and would not identify themselves as such. This is just another perennial smoke screen to avoid dealing with the facts and issues in this controversy which is first and foremost about the violation of professional ethics and human rights. Furthermore, science and activism are not necessarily antithetical or incompatible. The work of any genuine human rights activist must be based on a critical collection and analysis of factual information. For example, see: Human Rights: The Scholar Activist, Carole Nagengast and Carols G. Velez-Ibanez, eds. (2004). Nagengast is a scientists and scholar as well as an activist, and not a postmodernist. She has worked closely in Amnesty International and with other human rights organizations. The same applies to another author in the book, Robert Hitchcock. Indeed, the latter is a colleague of Hames, therefore Hames should actually know better about this point.

7. At least since Hippocrates, it has been recognized that professionals in science and medicine have certain responsibilities and should be held accountable when they fail to meet them. At least since 1948, the AAA has increasingly recognized this and developed formal statements on the matter of professional ethics. In addition, there are such statements as the Nuremberg Code, Helsinki Declaration, Belmont Report, and so on. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to try to dismiss the ethical concerns about the work of Chagnon and his associates as merely a means to some social or political end. This makes a mockery of professional ethics, but then there is repeated precedence for that in the conduct of Chagnon and his defenders. Furthermore, anyone who believes that the “science” of Chagnon and his defenders is devoid of ideology or apolitical and amoral, is either disingenuous or alarmingly ignorant and naive.

8 -9. There is no evidence to demonstrate these accusations. Furthermore, there is no evidence to demonstrate that Chagnon, Hames, and associates have been more genuine and effective in their efforts to help the Yanomami, especially in contrast to the work in Brazil by Bruce Albert, Alcida Ramos, Gale Goodwin Gomez, and others. See, for example, the bilingual Yanomami and Portuguese health manual by Bruce Albert and Gale Goodwin Gomez called Saude Yanomami: Um Manual Etnolinguistico (1997). Moreover, there is evidence that Chagnon’s Yanomami Survival Fund was ineffective and inactive. See the Final Report of the AAA Task Force plus Note 7 on page 138 of Linda Rabben’s book Unnatural Selection: The Yanomami, the Kayapo and the Onslaught of Civilization (1998).

10. By now it should be obvious that, in this particular instance at least, the reporter who published this article in Science failed to adequately do his own homework and therefore to conduct himself as a responsible journalist.

Individuals who speak out on this controversy should first do their homework and examine these issues critically and analytically as scientists and scholars. Most who have commented and even voted on the referendum have obviously failed to do so, and this is yet another ethical problem.

Finally, to help deal with the defenders of Chagnon and his own work, it is most useful to carefully consider the little book by the Princeton University professor of philosophy, Dr. Harry G. Frankfurt, called On Bullshit (2005). Clearly in some instances academia and science can be just that! Indeed, there have been repeated allegations by various anthropologists who have worked with the Yanomami to the effect that Chagnon purposefully manipulated and even falsified his field data to fit his ideas and interpretations about aggression. If true, that is not science! Such allegations have yet to be fully investigated and resolved one way or the other. It is time for a new task force to objectively, systematically, and thoroughly investigate all of the numerous and diverse allegations that have been made about violations of professional ethics and human rights in this case. Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and understanding. That is still lacking or inadequate on many aspects of this case, including statements by Chagnon's partisans many of whom continue to spread misinformation and disinformation.