In the ever-changing landscape of scientific inquiry, researchers and academics often find themselves at the intersection of progress and controversy. Whether due to societal misunderstandings, governmental overreach, or institutional failures, the freedom of scientific exploration can sometimes be met with resistance. In this interview, we will raise important questions about how often researchers and scientists face victimization due to misunderstandings, moral panic, and institutional mistakes, both in the U.S. and globally. We will explore why this happens, what scholars need to protect themselves, and discuss the implications of Title VI in the U.S.

Jerome Krase, Emeritus and Murray Koppelman Professor, Brooklyn College CUNY and the President of the EUASU Academy, will provide valuable insights on these critical issues that affect researchers worldwide.

Q: Thank you, Professor Krase, for taking the time to speak with us today. Your insights into the challenges faced by scientists and researchers in turbulent times are invaluable. What do you think causes situations where researchers and scientists are ostracized by society and law enforcement agencies due to misunderstandings, moral panic, or institutional mistakes?

JK: I think this problem happens because of two differences: society as a collective and the government representing the people. Society may disagree with or reject a scientist's work, but the consequences remain limited to public opinion. Society can simply say, “We don't agree with this scientist,” or “We don't like what the scientist is saying.” The biggest problem arises when the government responds. When the government intervenes, especially through its agencies, the situation becomes more serious due to the power to impose sanctions. Law enforcement and judicial institutions in most societies have a certain degree of independence. What can happen is that the government, in general, might not be particularly concerned with what the scientist has done, is doing, or is investigating. But the agency itself may be concerned. That becomes particularly true in areas where scientists are investigating sensitive topics.

What's extremely important for science is that a scientist must be free—free in virtually all aspects of their work, which includes both the research and the presentation of the research. This extends to the teaching of science, which I'll mention later when we discuss Title VI.

Interference becomes a particular problem when it affects research, the dissemination of findings, and teaching.

Q: Are there specific fields where scientists are more vulnerable to this kind of interference?

JK: Yes. For example, in the United States, social scientists, political scientists, or anthropologists are the ones most likely to run into difficulty. These researchers are often investigated or contacted by enforcement or judicial agencies because they, in fact, are studying those agencies.

If I conduct research on the prison system and discuss how it doesn't function properly, people within that system may become concerned and use whatever mechanisms or authorities they have to stop the work. They might try to prevent dissemination of the knowledge or discourage further investigation.

Q: How does moral panic contribute to these issues?

JK: Yes, many cases exist. Moral panic is a significant factor and is often a societal issue rather than a governmental one, though governments may act in response to societal panic, especially concerning cultural issues. It's also crucial here to understand that these kinds of things, such as moral panic, making institutional mistakes, and misunderstanding are much more likely to occur in periods of turmoil, such as wartime.

Historically, in the United States, there have been clear examples. For instance, the movie The War of the Worlds, depicting a Martian invasion of society, actually caused widespread panic. This also occurred during the McCarthy era, which coincided with the Cold War—a time of significant societal upheaval. During periods of intense tension, such as wartime, heightened public and governmental fear often increases sensitivity to perceived threats. 

However, this heightened sensitivity also raises the likelihood of mistakes and overreactions. Additionally, not only are mistakes more likely, but there is also a greater tendency to conceal those mistakes or take even more severe measures. Individuals who recognize their errors are often reluctant to admit them, as doing so can undermine their credibility. I think in the case of my good friend and colleague Oleg Maltsev, this is a major aspect of it.

In the United States, during the McCarthy period, many innocent people had their words and actions misinterpreted, leading to persecution. This remains a concern today, especially for scientists whose work touches on sensitive topics. Scientific inquiry must explore complex, and often controversial, issues. We're not supposed to simply say, 'Well, that topic is something I can't discuss because people might be offended, might not like it, or because I’ll be criticized.’ That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do. If we don't do that, then we're not really scientists. If we avoid these discussions out of fear of criticism or backlash, we fail in our responsibility as scientists. We have to do without bias, but we HAVE to do it.

Q: Have you experienced backlash or criticism because of your views?

JK: If you look at all my work in terms of race and ethnicity, gentrification, and stuff like that, it's all critical of the society in which I live, and even globally. I have experienced over my long career quite a number of instances of being attacked in one way or another, denied grants, or having my work criticized because people didn’t agree with my position, etc. I’ve also experienced at a particular point people trying to have me fired—in other words, trying to have me lose my job because some political group didn’t like what I was doing. But that’s what we have to do.

Q: Are you aware of historical cases where scientists were attacked for important research?

JK: There's quite a number. And again, you have to look at the conditions. In other words, it's more likely to occur when there's moral panic, or as we call it, a principle of uncertainty. For example, with the recent COVID-19 pandemic, there were quite a number of scientists during that particular period of time who were not only criticized but investigated for their work, including one of the best scientists, the head of the CDC, the agency that investigates epidemics. What happened is because he was saying things that people didn’t agree with, they started investigating him and trying to bring him up on charges. This is not unusual in times of uncertainty. 

I believe that if it weren’t for the dire situation in Ukraine, the research of scientists like Dr. Maltsev and others would have remained confined to the scientific community and unlikely to attract the attention of law enforcement agencies. It is periods of significant upheaval—such as the current conflict—that prompt authorities to scrutinize such work, especially when they perceive it as potentially critical of their actions. Such circumstances also increase the likelihood of authorities making mistakes in their response.

Take, for example, Martin Oppenheimer—he was investigated, as were many others documented in the historical record. These investigations tend to occur during specific periods of heightened tension or upheaval. Scientists who are more likely to face such scrutiny are often those in fields like political science or social sciences. This is particularly true for those whose work involves examining institutions like the FBI or addressing politically sensitive topics.

Q: So, we have a certain gap between society and science; between law enforcement agencies and science…

JK: Because they have different jobs to do. The simplest way to understand it is that scientists are meant to objectively investigate all phenomena, whether the phenomenon is sensitive or not, whether the person or the institution they're investigating is powerful or not. But that's our job. On the other hand, the institutions may see it as their job to protect themselves. As a scientist, I'm not putting a moral label on this kind of situation. The people who wrongly investigate are people who think that what they're doing is their job.

Q: Could you share some personal experiences that illustrate these situations you have encountered?

JK: I can give you some simple personal examples of difficulties I've been in with various aspects of either institutional or other kinds of enforcement. They'll say, “Well, I had to, I'm sorry, I had to investigate you because we got a call from somebody, or somebody sent an anonymous letter saying this and that. Now, we've investigated and I have to do it.” Some people will apologize, saying, “I didn’t want to do this, but it’s my job.” But that doesn’t change the situation.

Q: How does being under investigation affect someone, particularly if they are innocent?

JK: In other words, being under investigation, especially if you're innocent, is difficult. I have a friend of mine, a criminal defense attorney I've known for many years, and he said the most difficult thing for a criminal defense attorney is to defend someone who is innocent. Because what happens in a criminal court is you have to respond to the accusations. And so if you haven't done anything, there's nothing you can present. You have to be able to prove things that are non-existent. “I wasn’t there.” What do you mean, “You were there”? “I wasn’t there.” “Well, somebody saw you there.” But you have to come up with something. Somebody saw you not there? In other words, the logic is crazy.

So, the person who is accused, particularly if they're innocent of what they're being charged, has a much more difficult time proving innocence than proving “not guilty.” I don’t know if you understand the nuance. The court does not find people innocent; they find people not guilty. So what you have to do is attack the accusations. You have to respond to the accusations.

Q: Speaking about the situation when a scientist is being investigated but there’s no real investigation because they don’t have the qualifications to evaluate the research, what measures can be considered necessary to improve the dialogue between science and law enforcement?

JK: In my situation that I’m familiar with, personal situations or situations in which I have intimate knowledge, it’s always about locating someone within that system. Not necessarily someone you’re friendly with, but someone you know about, who has a better understanding of what you’re doing, because they have to talk to each other. In other words, you need to find people within the government, whether national or local, or within the institution itself. There has to be somebody in these institutions who has university training, someone familiar with the work that scientists do, etc. And that’s the person you need to get to talk to the other people.

Q: How does this collaboration work in the American system?

JK: I don’t know how the Ukrainian defense system works, but in the American system, what happens is you have different kinds of witnesses. For example, I’ve been in civil cases where I was a scientific witness for someone who was suing the government. So, I was—what they call it—an expert witness in a federal case. I was asked to come testify, and I went through the whole process where they vetted me and said, “What are you going to say?” etc., including the defense, not just the people who wanted me to testify. I justified in court about the situation. I’ve done this a number of times, so that’s the kind of thing you need.

The judge can then look at whatever is being presented. And in this particular case, what you're talking about is somebody who understands the difference between science and the goals of science—to find the truth, to find the facts, etc.—and not to make a moral judgment. It’s not a criticism. It’s so interesting, the different points of view, because you could be pointing out a flaw or a difficulty in the institution, which should be corrected.

Q: How often are there cases when scientific discoveries become objects of unjustified criticism?

JK: Frequently. Even because of the difference between the scientists themselves. I have been presenting at a conference, and then somebody stands up and says, “But what you’re saying is not true.” Even amongst the scientists, this can go on. But what we never do, unless it’s politically involved, is we never say, “You have to go to jail because you said something I disagree with,” or “You have to go to jail because you’re saying something which is critical of me, which makes me look different, makes me look bad in some particular way.”

Q: What role does the media play in creating moral panic? 

JK: Mass media can be a positive or a negative. That’s why in some of the communications I’ve had, when I’ve worked with protest groups in the United States, I sometimes recommend to them, “Use a soft voice in your criticism,” not to be harsh. The harsher you are, psychologically, the more negative the response will be. Mass media is important, but the story has to be presented in such a way that it’s positive for the victim. But not too bad for the perpetrator. Unless, of course, you're gone. 

Q: How can scientists protect their research from misinterpretation?

JK: In the U.S., particularly with social sciences, we have the American Sociological Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Anthropological Association—these organizations. They have outlets where they present findings to the general public without the jargon, making it more understandable. But this could still be sensitive. All these large professional associations do the same thing. They present their work in a way that benefits society, making it understandable and positive for the public. That’s what needs to happen. Our EUASU Academy can be involved in that as well, presenting things in a way that is accessible.

Q: Do you think having diverse perspectives is important in scientific research?

JK: I mentioned to Dr. Maltsev during some of our conversations, on debate, that there are things I don’t agree with. But he’s very convincing because he’s very knowledgeable about his particular area. He sees things in different ways, and that’s the point: you need people who see things differently in order to advance knowledge. If everybody sees and says the same thing, it’s of no value. 

Q: How can we increase scientific literacy in society?

JK: Scientific literacy must be done, but it’s a very difficult thing to achieve. It has to be done by the larger government itself. What’s unfortunately occurring in the United States is the opposite. We now have Donald Trump coming in, very anti-intellectual, very—what they call—anti-fact-based knowledge, and so they are attacking any science that goes against their ideology. That’s dangerous. It’s dangerous for society and dangerous for Ukraine too. You have to figure out some way of getting insight into what’s going on in society in order to deal with it. Otherwise, you don’t know. You have to remember that institutions and agencies tend to be lazy when it comes to this, or they don’t want to find out things that make them look bad. That’s our job. That's what scientists should do.

Q: You also mentioned the Title VI problem in the USA. Can you share about it?

JK: Title VI has been interpreted in a way that’s dangerous. One major problem in the United States is racism—seeing people with dark skin as inferior. So, I said, “How are we going to deal with this? What must we do?” The answer is education. But Title VI restricts this because it says, at any grade level, I cannot discuss anything that might make a student uncomfortable due to their race, ethnicity, religion, or culture. As a social scientist, I often address topics that can make some students uncomfortable. For instance, if a student believes in racist ideas and I discuss why racism is wrong, they might feel uneasy. Similarly, talking about the Holocaust and condemning anti-Semitism could upset an anti-Semite in the class. Title VI allows students to report discomfort to the administration, which must act. While the law doesn’t require firing a professor, administrations sensitive to media or funding pressures might take extreme measures, like terminating employment, to avoid controversy. This can misrepresent the situation entirely.

Q: Can you provide an example of how institutions handle complaints and investigations?

JK: I'll give you one example that occurs in institutions, and it’s probably relevant to Dr. Maltsev’s situation as well. Someone got a report to a superior, and the superior wanted to look good. There’s always this kind of stuff that goes on. When I was chairing my sociology department, students came to me with complaints about a faculty member—and I’m open to hearing students’ concerns. They complained about the grades they received, saying, “We got Bs; we should have gotten As,” etc. I responded, “Well, I’ll be objective. I’ll investigate”. This is what this agency in Ukraine should have done. I continued, “Give me your work graded by this professor, and I’ll have it reviewed independently. If the independent review shows that you deserve a higher grade, you’ll get it.”

Q: How did the students respond?

JK: They simply wanted higher grades and complained about the tardiness of the professor as a justification for raising their grades.

Q: What was the outcome?

JK: I said "No" to the students and said I would speak to the professor; who later complained to the college administration that I was biased. Luckily they knew of my anti bias work and my reputation in the outside community. If not, had I not been tenured, I could have been fired.

Q: What does this example say about institutional investigations?

JK: It highlights how easily accusations can become problematic. If we want real science—science that benefits society and the agencies investigating scientists—then scientists must be free to do their job. There’s nothing wrong with investigating them, but it must be done objectively. If accusations are proven untrue, agencies should acknowledge this. Unfortunately, admitting mistakes is often difficult for agencies.

Q: Do you have any personal experience with baseless accusations?

JK: Yes. I once awaited trial for six months on baseless charges. Thanks to a good friend who knew the truth, I wasn’t imprisoned. Otherwise, I would have been in what they call the tombs for six months. Eventually, the case was dismissed, but there was no apology—they simply dismissed it.

Q: How does uncertainty affect these situations?

JK: When you’re in a situation of uncertainty, it aligns with something called the uncertainty principle. It becomes more difficult. Governments and agencies respond more vigorously because they want to be protective. Anything you say that can be interpreted in a certain way will be.

We extend our heartfelt thanks to Professor Krase for his candor, wisdom, and the compelling real-life examples he shared during this interview.