While the work of scientists is already demanding, they frequently encounter additional external difficulties. What is the essence of the scientific method? Why do scientists become targets of attacks from society, the groups they study, their colleagues, and even law enforcement agencies? What can be done to protect them and establish a connection between scientists and the rest of society? We discussed these issues with the distinguished French sociologist and political scientist, Professor Lucien Oulahbib.

Q: Today, we live in a world where misunderstandings, moral panic, and institutional errors often lead to researchers themselves being unfairly targeted by both society and law enforcement. In your view, what are the principal reasons behind such situations?

LO: I believe the primary cause lies in a widespread misunderstanding of the scientific method. Generally speaking, there are two approaches to research. The first is empirical, wherein one must collect data, sometimes under challenging circumstances that depend greatly upon the field of study.

Q: Could you clarify what makes the empirical approach so challenging?

LO: In empirical research, one often needs to gather information directly from the environment or community being studied. This may require immersing oneself in a group without revealing the fact that one is a researcher or scientist, lest one disturb the natural setting. If you were to openly declare, “I am a scientist, and I am here to analyze you,” it would alter the behavior of the individuals under observation. They would recognize you as an outsider, not one of their own, and thus their responses would become unnatural. Such disruptions defeat the purpose of the research. It is akin to the methods employed by certain journalists or zoologists, who endeavor to blend in or remain unseen to ensure the authenticity of their observations, whether of human subjects or animals.

Q: What is the second approach you mentioned?

LO: The second approach is more theoretical. Here, one works primarily with existing literature—articles, studies, and findings from other researchers. From these, one synthesizes and compares various theories. In this mode, direct interaction with subjects is unnecessary, and one may remain “at a desk,” so to speak, examining materials that have already been gathered by others.

Q: How do you personally decide which method to employ?

LO: My preference often leans toward the empirical method. However, the choice depends upon the research question. If I must merely compare established theories, I need not collect new data. On the other hand, if the subject is entirely new and previously unexamined, it becomes necessary for me and my team to venture into the field. In such situations, as I mentioned earlier, it may be essential to conceal one’s identity to obtain accurate, undistorted observations.

Q: Why do misunderstandings arise in the public sphere regarding these methods?

LO: Difficulties arise when officials or the general public fail to understand why such methods are required. It may be prudent, therefore, to establish an independent panel or institution composed of both scientists and officials. Such a body, understanding the intricacies of research methods, could explain why certain approaches—such as discreet or concealed observation—are indispensable. It could reassure political authorities that certain investigative techniques are indeed legitimate and necessary for achieving accurate analyses.

Q: Could you provide examples of research areas that require these sensitive methods?

LO: Certainly. Consider contemporary issues involving sensitive or contentious topics. For instance, to study the rise of antisemitism or extremist groups, one may need to enter such communities without declaring one’s true purpose. Were one to announce, “I am a scientist, and I wish to understand why you hold these antisemitic beliefs,” the group would likely exclude or openly oppose the researcher. Employing a form of “camouflage” and blending in quietly is often the sole means by which to gather meaningful insights.

Q: Is this manner of research also employed in fields beyond the social sciences?

LO: Indeed, similar principles apply to the police or counter-espionage agencies. When they need to study certain terrorist groups, they must go undercover, disguise themselves, and hide their identities. It parallels the scientific need for concealed observation. If, for example, you are a criminologist wishing to understand the mindset and behavior of criminals, it is necessary to hide your identity. If you do not, the criminals will simply mask their genuine thoughts and actions, rendering your findings inaccurate. If authorities and the public better understood this complexity, I think we would see fewer cases of researchers being wrongly targeted or misunderstood.

Q: How often do cases arise in which scientific research and researchers themselves face unjust criticism from society and law enforcement institutions?

LO: Such cases occur quite frequently. I can recall several examples from France. One instance involves a journalist who attempted to infiltrate an antisemitic group. After publishing her analysis in a well-known French review, she granted several interviews regarding her work. Almost immediately, she faced severe attacks—actual threats—and found it extremely difficult to continue her research. At present, I do not know her exact situation, but I understand that she now has police protection. She was even compelled to change her address and relocate to another residence, as her findings greatly disturbed the group in question.

Another case, also from France, concerns a scientist working at the CNRS (The French National Centre for Scientific Research, the largest fundamental science agency in Europe). This case, too, involves a female researcher. She wrote about the Muslim Brotherhood and its capacity to infiltrate universities, scholarly networks, and media outlets. In conducting this study, she had to conceal her true identity.

It is a well-known example because she professed a keen interest in Islam, claiming she wished to understand it more deeply and perhaps even convert to that particular interpretation of Islam. Under this guise, she joined the group. She remained undercover for approximately two years, observing the situation from the inside. Afterward, she authored a book revealing her findings, finally disclosing that she was, in fact, a scientist.

Q: How did the group respond once it learned of her true identity?

LO: They were exceedingly angered. They did not merely criticize her; they sought to harm her physically. Their reaction transcended legal disputes and veered into violence. They even threatened her life in France. Furthermore, some of her colleagues at the CNRS condemned her methods, asserting that it was improper to conceal her identity and insisting that she should have openly explained her intentions. However, it later emerged that the very colleague who criticized her methods was closely connected to that group, which explained his defense of their cause.

From a scientific point of view, colleagues of this sort cease to be true scientists; they become mere propagandists or ideologues. They do not adhere to the scientific method because, in sociology, psychology, and the social sciences, the paramount principle is to avoid interfering with the subject of one’s analysis. If one interferes, it is impossible to attain a clear, unbiased perception of the matter under study.

Q: You mentioned a third, more sensitive example. Could you elaborate?

LO: Certainly. Consider the case of the renowned scientist Didier Raoult. He is a distinguished biologist and microbiologist whose views diverge from the official stance concerning the Covid-19 virus. He formerly led a prominent university and hospital in Marseille, in southern France. Professor Raoult is ranked among the top ten microbiologists worldwide and enjoys considerable recognition.

Professor Raoult challenges the official method, asserting that a more empirical approach is necessary. He believes that certain existing tools can be used effectively against the virus and advocates for their implementation, as he did within his own institute, achieving commendable results. His unorthodox approach, however, has sparked significant controversy among the scientific and medical communities.

Q: How have the authorities and his peers reacted to his unconventional stance?

LO: His adversaries claim he is uncooperative with them. Nonetheless, the medical authorities struggle to find grounds to challenge his studies. Not a single patient has filed a complaint stating, “I am here because of him. I suffered from Covid again, and his treatments proved ineffective.” No legal action has been taken against him. His opponents are mainly jealous colleagues, hostile peers, and a few officials. This illustrates another dimension of the issue.

Q: Are there any other similar cases involving prominent figures?

LO: Yes, there is another troubling example involving Boualem Sansal, a renowned French-Algerian writer. He is currently in custody in Algeria, charged with national security violations—accusations that appear entirely baseless.

Q: What triggered these charges against Sansal?

LO: Sansal is a respected author who has been openly critical of the Algerian regime, particularly its political and economic failures. He also addressed historical issues involving territorial disputes between Algeria and Morocco. During the French colonial era, regions such as Tlemcen, which historically belonged to Morocco, were reassigned to Algeria. Sansal merely stated these historical facts, but his remarks were construed as anti-Algerian propaganda.

Q: What is his current situation?

LO: At present, we do not know where he is being held. There are rumors suggesting that he was sent to a hospital due to his age—he is approximately 75 years old—but nothing has been confirmed. His current condition and location remain uncertain.

In France, a petition demanding his release has already been signed by several prominent academics. However, progress has been slow. Even President Macron has expressed concern but remains cautious, likely due to the diplomatic sensitivity surrounding the matter. The situation highlights the intersection of political agendas, personal rivalries, and issues of freedom of expression in a deeply complex geopolitical context.

Q: How might external influences affect the perception of scientific findings?

LO: Perhaps this situation  arises from the highly “mediatic” (media-saturated) nature of our society, wherein there is intense pressure exerted upon original scientists or those who propose novel methodological approaches. There is much contention, many attacks, especially from individuals who know nothing of the scientific method. Many believe themselves knowledgeable, when in truth they are not, and so it degenerates into mere rumor—nothing more than rumor-mongering.

At times, certain media outlets assume the role of propagandists, particularly when they are linked to oppressive or financially influential pressure groups uninterested in fostering transparent analyses, whether in criminology or microbiology. There exist powerful lobbies that prefer to interfere with both science and democracy, regardless of the people’s rightful claim to understand openly the conditions under which they live.

Q: You gave very interesting examples from France. Do you know of any cases where the police or law enforcement directly targeted scientists due to a lack of understanding?

LO: Oh, yes, such behavior can occur, especially if the police receive incorrect or incomplete information. If someone makes false accusations or misinterprets a scientist’s actions or research, and the police lack proper context or understanding, they may take premature action based on faulty reports.

Q: Can you provide specific examples of how this has happened in France?

LO: In France, for example, there have been instances where people were arrested due to hasty decisions made by authorities. Sometimes, officials receive reports claiming that a person has said or done something suspicious. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation first, they may arrest the person based solely on the initial report. This kind of reactive approach can lead to serious consequences.

Q: Is this a broader issue, particularly in unstable regions or times of conflict?

LO: Yes, absolutely. When you find yourself in such a situation—particularly in unstable regions like Ukraine—some individuals in power may become overly sensitive or even paranoid. They might try to justify their own errors by arresting the wrong people. It is often a matter of shifting blame to avoid taking responsibility before their superiors.

Q: How do you explain this behavior from a psychological or institutional perspective?

LO: It comes down to accountability. They cannot simply say, “We failed to understand the situation”; instead, they may attempt to cover up their mistakes by blaming an innocent person to shift the burden of responsibility. This is a common occurrence during times of war or societal unrest when institutions are under intense pressure to demonstrate control or competence.

Q: Can such misunderstandings be corrected over time?

LO: If the police or institutions are honest and transparent, they should eventually realize their mistakes. I suppose that, in time, they will understand that scientists are not spies or traitors working with the enemy, but rather individuals pursuing knowledge and research. This kind of misunderstanding is not new—it has historical precedents.

However, there is another historical example from France, dating back to the period of Nazi occupation during World War II. Despite the German occupation lasting four years, many scientists and intellectuals continued their work. Take Jean-Paul Sartre, the famous philosopher. During this difficult time, Sartre wrote his renowned book Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (French: L'Être et le néant : Essai d'ontologie phénoménologique) and even produced several plays.

What is remarkable is that, as suspicious and repressive as the Gestapo was, even they never interfered with Sartre’s work. I never heard of Sartre being arrested by the Gestapo. He simply kept working. Similarly, artists like Pablo Picasso remained in Paris, continuing their creative endeavors despite the occupation.

Q: Why didn’t Sartre join the French Resistance, as some might have expected?

LO: After the war, some people questioned why Sartre stayed in Paris instead of joining the Maquis—the French Resistance in the countryside. But that was not his role. His responsibility, like that of many intellectuals, artists, and writers, was to continue his work, even in the face of war and occupation. Also, consider Sartre’s personal limitations—his poor eyesight and thick glasses. It would have been impractical for him to fight against the Gestapo in a literal sense. His battle was an intellectual one, fought with words, ideas, and art. This underscores the point that even in times of great crisis, intellectuals and scientists have their unique roles to play, contributing to society in ways that go beyond physical resistance.

Q: What distinguishes a true researcher?

A: You must follow established scientific rules and be exceptionally precise if you want to produce original research and explore new angles. You cannot simply repeat what others have done. In science, if you are a true researcher, your goal is not to confirm existing results but to uncover new findings and develop new methods. Otherwise, you become just another bureaucrat, a functionary—not a true scientist.

If you are just a teacher in a school, it’s fine to rely on the results of others because your role is to pass on established knowledge. But if you are a researcher, you must be like Sherlock Holmes, investigating and analyzing the field. You must approach the field as a detective would—searching for fresh perspectives and new evidence.

I hope the situation in Ukraine is simply a misunderstanding of scientific processes. I trust that the people in charge are intelligent enough to recognize the complexity and specialty of scientific work. If not, it would be a great pity.

Q:  Professor Lucien, don’t you think this issue goes beyond Ukraine? Isn’t this a global problem when law enforcement agencies or policymakers try to evaluate scientific research without proper qualifications? As a scientist, how would you comment on this? Is it appropriate for them to assess scientific results when they lack expertise?

LO: No, it’s not appropriate at all. If they are not specialists in the field, they have no business evaluating scientific research independently. They can collaborate with real scientists, seeking their expertise and advice. But they cannot declare on their own, “This research is invalid,” just because they think it’s outside their understanding or area of interest. That’s not their role.

Science must be evaluated by scientists, by those with the necessary expertise and experience. Policymakers or law enforcement officials cannot decide what constitutes legitimate science, as this is far beyond their professional competence. When they try to do so, it becomes ideological or politically motivated, not a scientific evaluation. This should never be allowed to happen.

Q: Thank you for your comment. What measures do you believe are necessary to improve the dialogue between science and society, particularly with law enforcement agencies? 

LO: It comes down to trust—building confidence between scientists, society, the media, and institutions. If these institutions, including universities and media outlets, better understand how science works and how research is conducted, this trust can be strengthened. It is essential to explain how scientific research operates, especially in modern, complex societies with diverse perspectives.

We live in a diverse world where people have many different viewpoints, which is why it’s crucial to approach this diversity with new methods. We cannot rely solely on traditional methods that were used for decades. It is crucial to explain to the public why scientists must sometimes adopt unconventional methods, particularly when studying sensitive or dangerous subjects.

If the public gains confidence in the scientific process and understands its complexities, they may be less likely to criticize scientists when they use methods that seem non-transparent or secretive. An independent institution made up of international researchers could serve as a bridge, linking the public and the scientific community while maintaining transparency and objectivity. This would create a “balance of power” between society and science.

Q: What would this “balance of power” look like in practice?

LO: It would involve establishing an independent body of experts who can evaluate scientific methods and findings without political or ideological interference. This institution would help explain to the public why certain research methods must remain confidential. For example, in sensitive fields like sociology or criminology, researchers cannot simply announce their intentions when studying dangerous groups like organized crime or extremist organizations.

Sometimes, researchers must take on alternate identities to infiltrate these groups, just as undercover journalists or intelligence agents do. Sometimes, these groups can be extremely dangerous, like the Mafia. You can’t simply say, “I’m a researcher studying the Mafia.”

The same principle applies to intelligence services, such as counter-espionage agencies like the FBI, MI6, or national counter-terrorism units. These agencies send operatives undercover to gather critical information. It’s a standard method—not just something you see in movies, but a real necessity in the world of law enforcement and intelligence gathering.

However, I believe that once your analysis is complete and you publish your findings in a book or other format, openly presenting your results should clear any suspicion. It would, of course, appear questionable if someone were to spend 10 years inside such a group and never produce any scientific work—this could understandably raise concerns for law enforcement.

Q: Let’s return to scientists specifically. How can researchers protect themselves from misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or even attacks by society or law enforcement agencies? You’ve already started mentioning some measures. Could you elaborate further?

LO:  I believe scientists must engage with international institutions for protection and legitimacy. They should report their findings and methods to reputable organizations like UNESCO, the United Nations, or the European Commission. Hosting press conferences and publishing detailed reports could also help clarify their work. Moreover, scientists should seek legal support and involve human rights organizations like Amnesty International or similar advocacy groups that defend freedom of research and expression. There are international associations dedicated to protecting scientists and activists who expose critical issues.

Transparency at the international level is crucial. Scientists must speak openly about their work before global institutions to ensure they are recognized, protected, and respected. National institutions alone may not offer sufficient protection, especially when scientific work challenges powerful interests. International visibility could be a life-saving shield.

Q: What historical parallels can be drawn with the Maltsev case?

LO: There were Soviet scientists who faced similar accusations, with some being labeled as American spies, though such claims were unfounded.

Q: Can you provide a specific example?

LO: One notable example is Soviet mathematician and physicist Andrei Sakharov. He was arrested, likely because authorities feared his discoveries might be exposed or misused. His case highlights the ongoing conflict between scientific openness and state control.

In certain instances, individuals were even sent to psychiatric asylums, as the government considered them criminals or spies. This happened because their research was deemed valuable and sensitive. Authorities may have feared that publishing such findings could expose crucial knowledge to the public or foreign powers.

Q: Why do you think scientific openness can be viewed as dangerous by some governments?

LO: The scientific spirit is inherently international. Scientists like Albert Einstein and other prominent researchers made groundbreaking discoveries and sought to share their findings openly and freely. However, sometimes officials—whether due to paranoia or political agendas—viewed such openness as a threat. They feared that scientific research could influence political landscapes or reveal state secrets.

Q: Should scientific research always be conducted transparently?

LO: Science must operate transparently, though the research process itself may require temporary secrecy. On the one hand, scientists often need to conceal their methods to gather accurate data. On the other hand, when their research is complete, they are obligated to publish their results openly. This dual approach is a natural part of scientific inquiry.

Q: How should governments handle complex scientific research they may not fully understand?

LO: If officials fail to understand the specific nature of such research methods, they should consult international scientific institutions. They should seek advice from qualified experts on how scientific discoveries are made, especially in complex fields. This applies not only to the social sciences but to many scientific domains.

True scientific work goes far beyond compiling statistics in a laboratory. Genuine researchers must develop original methods, explore new perspectives, and adapt as their work progresses. This innovative process is essential for advancing knowledge.

Q: How can the international scientific community help protect researchers?

LO: As I mentioned earlier, international institutions should play a central role in evaluating and protecting scientific work. These organizations can help ensure that unique research methods are understood, respected, and defended from misinterpretation or unjust accusations. This global support system is essential for fostering scientific innovation while safeguarding researchers from political or institutional interference.

Q: Thank you very much. Now, my last question: In your opinion, what role does mass media play in creating moral panic around science?

LO: It depends on the type of media. If the media are not independent and are closely linked to lobbying groups—whether political, religious, or commercial—it becomes very difficult to maintain an objective narrative. This is why it is crucial for officials and the public not to believe everything the media says.

One must inquire of themselves: Who funds these media outlets? Who stands behind them? Why are they saying that a particular scientist is “not good” or discrediting certain research? Blind trust in media—even prominent or well-known outlets—is dangerous. You need to interpret the connections and motivations behind what is published.

Even if a journalist writes for a respected newspaper or review, you have to question why they are writing such a story at that particular moment. What could be influencing them? Are there hidden interests behind their accusations? You must investigate the people making these claims. Why are they accusing others now, and not two years ago? Why is this happening at this specific moment?

Sometimes, behind these stories, there are vested interests—perhaps the creation of a competing institution or an attempt to gain control over certain research fields. Such motives can drive misinformation campaigns. This is why one must remain strong, firm, and resilient—not intimidated or manipulated by these forces. You must always question the source and motive behind the information presented.

Thank you very much, Professor Oulahbib, for your valuable contributions to this important discussion. We appreciate you sharing your insights and providing such detailed examples.