In this exclusive interview, Dr. James O. Finckenauer—organized crime expert, author, distinguished Professor Emeritus at Rutgers University and an EUASU academician—explores the multifaceted obstacles faced by scientists and researchers as they challenge entrenched interests and attempt to bridge gaps in understanding. From funding limitations and societal misunderstandings to political interference and the suppression of research, these challenges underscore the critical need for reform in education, media practices, and policy frameworks. By drawing on his extensive experience and providing real-world examples, Dr. James O. Finckenauer outlines the strategies for fostering productive dialogue between the scientific community and key societal institutions. His insights emphasize the importance of scientific literacy, unbiased media reporting, and targeted professional training for law enforcement and judiciary members, as foundational steps to ensuring science remains an unimpeded and transformative force in society.

Q: In general, why are researchers and scientists sometimes subjected to attacks from society and governmental and law enforcement agencies?

JF: This is a very broad question, and I believe it is a complicated situation without a simple answer. However, if I were to provide a general response, objections arise when someone has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

When a researcher or scientist presents information that challenges the status quo—information that certain people are unwilling to let go of—they fight back against it. To illustrate, after reading your questions, I thought of some examples, some of which are quasi-criminal, while others may not appear to be criminal at all.

For instance, cigarette manufacturers in the United States have made substantial profits for many years by selling cigarettes. However, researchers working for these companies were aware, through their own internal studies, that cigarettes could cause cancer, and yet this information was deliberately suppressed.

Q: Why do you think this suppression occurred?

JF: Simply because the cigarette industry wanted to keep selling cigarettes. Then, an individual who was knowledgeable about the manufacturer’s own research came forward as a whistleblower, going on national television and discussing the issue. He subsequently faced threats, including the possibility of criminal charges. Why? Because the cigarette industry was committed to protecting its interests and did not want this information to get out.

Q: Do you think this type of suppression is limited to private industries, or does it extend to other areas?

JF: I think, in general, whenever a particular problem involves powerful interests—especially if those interests are governmental or law enforcement-related—such as those defined as involving national security matters -- and they (the government) does not want the information to be made public, it can create significant challenges and even pose a real threat to those trying to release it.

To provide a related example from the field of criminology, there is an organization in the U.S. called the National Rifle Association (NRA). While it is not a government entity, the NRA holds significant political influence due to its large financial contributions to political candidates, which help shape their positions on gun control.

Q: How has the NRA's influence impacted research related to guns?

JF: For years, the U.S. government decided that no research could be conducted pertaining to guns, and no funding would be provided to researchers wanting to study the effects of guns and gun control. Meanwhile, the average person was reading about shootings happening regularly, with hundreds of people, including children being killed every year! This is obviously a huge problem. Just recently, for instance, a girl shot some classmates and a teacher at a school in Wisconsin. This is a major issue, but the National Rifle Association does not want anyone studying it, examining the data, the science pertaining to guns, and the harm caused by guns. As a result, they have effectively suppressed most research since it was prohibited to conduct studies on this matter.

Q: But how is this possible? I mean, the academic world should be free to explore and research without restrictions.

JF: There was simply no funding available for the research. It is extremely difficult for academics in the US to conduct research without financial backing. Researchers typically rely on universities or institutes for funding. If you are part of an institute, your research is likely to be funded, but if you are a university professor, you have to find your own sources of funding. While the university pays my salary, for example, it does not cover the costs of my research. So, if I wanted to study guns, I would have to secure funding from another source. But due to the prohibition on such research funding to study gun violence, it was effectively suppressed.

Q: Could you share an example from your own experience?

JF: A number of years ago, in the state of New Jersey, there was a program where children were brought into a prison to be exposed to the inmates and the prison environment. It was called the Juvenile Awareness Project. Some people involved in or knowledgeable about the program wanted to determine whether it actually worked—whether exposing children to the prison experience would deter them from committing future crimes. I was approached to research this. By the time I was approached, however, the program had become widely popular.

It was not just in New Jersey anymore—it had spread to other states and even other countries. Movie makers were coming in to create a film about it, which they called Scared Straight, the same title as the movie they ultimately produced. Additionally, there were political figures in New Jersey, particularly a judge seemingly with aspirations for higher office, who saw the program as a platform for exposure and popularity.

Q: What did your research find?

JF: I conducted the research, and guess what? I found that the program did not work as was being claimed. I conducted a randomized controlled experiment in which I randomly assigned some kids to go to the prison, while others, similar to them, did not. I then followed up both groups to see if they committed any offenses, and I discovered that the kids who went to the prison and experienced the program had more offenses than those who did not—completely contrary to what one might expect. And, obviously shocking to the program’s enthusiastic supporters!

Q: How were your findings received?

JF: I released my findings, and then there was considerable outcry against me for doing this study and publishing results that challenged what the vested interests wanted and hoped for.

Q: What specific criticisms were raised against your study?

JF: The study was criticized as being too small, the follow-up period was too short, and there were claims that I had somehow manipulated the control group, among other accusations.

Q: Did you face any personal backlash?

JF: Yes. I started getting angry phone calls. People made threats, questioning who was I to interfere with this obviously great program. The critics claimed that these inmates and their backers were trying to do something good by preventing delinquency, and I was standing in their way.

Q: Could you share any notable reactions you received?

JF: I’ll give you two examples of public remarks that were made about me. These were not necessarily from authorities, but they came from people across different groups. One person announced in a public forum that I was the kind of person who would pull the wings off a butterfly, implying that I was capable of destroying something beautiful like this program.

Q: What else was said about you during this time?

JF: During a public session where people were shouting me down and verbally attacking me—not physically, but with harsh words—someone said that if “Jesus Christ were to return to Earth today, I’d [meaning me] be able to show with statistics that it wasn’t really him.”

Q: How did this make you feel, and what do you think their goal was?

JF: It was a form of undermining, with questions like “Who am I to do this?” or “What am I even doing?” The goal was to undermine me, to try to silence me and suppress my findings.

Q: What broader message does this experience convey about challenging the status quo?

JF: This admittedly small and limited example illustrates what happens when you challenge a status quo that some want to maintain. When you challenge those who have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are, and you present information that contradicts their interests, they will not hesitate to do whatever they can to suppress it and get you to stop speaking out. If they need to resort to threats or other tactics, they will do it.

Q: While this story is somewhat absurd, it serves as a strong example of an unjustified attack. Thank you for sharing. Has anyone ever brought a lawsuit against you because of the research you’ve done?

JF: No. Apart from some verbal threats there's been no actual action of that kind.

Q: How often scientific works and discoveries become objects of criticism?

JF: I think this happens quite often, and sometimes it even comes from other scientists. When someone publishes a finding or research that shows one thing, another researcher may come along and challenge it. In these cases, scientists can become very protective of their own work. It is a competitive environment. Especially in universities, science and research are the paths to promotion, recognition, publications, grants, and funding. Everything depends on how the research is received. So, academics are very protective of their findings, eager to get them into journals and secure more funding. When someone challenges their work, they feel the need to react and defend what they have done.

Some of this tension exists within the scientific community itself, but it spills over into the political arena when science challenges political ideology. That is when the problem intensifies, because then it is not just scientists involved. Politicians, government officials, and sometimes even law enforcement step in to challenge certain research results, which raises the stakes significantly. At that point, a researcher could even face criminal charges.

A famous historical case in this country is what was known as the Scopes Trial. A science teacher in Tennessee was attempting to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in a school, which directly contradicted the Biblical story of man’s creation in Genesis, with Adam and Eve. As a result, the state brought criminal charges against the teacher. He was tried, convicted, and fined. This is a much higher-profile example of challenging ideology—specifically the Bible’s teachings about the origins of man. Religious and political authorities did not want this information to get out, and they did whatever they could to suppress it. In this case, it was the same type of issue as with the whistleblower involved with the cigarette industry—both he and Scopes were facing threats because they were challenging the protected status quo. The teacher was simply teaching science, and evolution, whether people believe in it or not, is a scientific theory.

Q: It seems absolutely crazy.

JF: But it is true—these cases actually happened. There are many examples like this where it is not just a theoretical problem. But sometimes the researchers bring this upon themselves. Take the whole COVID situation in the U.S., for example. There was so much confusion about COVID—should we wear masks? Should we avoid this or that? And then the vaccine arrived. Suddenly, conspiracy theories started circulating—some claimed that taking the vaccine would implant something in your head, thus allowing the government to track your movements. This kind of crazy talk took hold, and some people genuinely believed it. For instance, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and was one of the main scientists advocating for the vaccine, became a target. His life and the lives of his family were threatened, and people even called for his assassination, simply because he was advocating for the vaccine. In this case, science was being twisted by a number of politicians for political and ideological purposes.

Q: So, clearly there is a gap between science and society, as well as between science and some government and law enforcement agencies. What do you think needs to be done to improve the dialogue between science and society, and between science and governmental and law enforcement agencies?

JF: I think there are several things that need to be done. First and foremost, I would start with science education. People in general need to have a basic understanding of what science is—what it involves, how it works, and what it seeks to study. This should begin in schools, where children have access to science classes that help them grasp fundamental scientific concepts. The goal should be ensuring that science education is not just about memorizing facts but also about teaching children how to think critically, ask questions, and understand the scientific method. Schools need to emphasize hands-on experiments and problem-solving approaches that make science relatable to everyday life.

Q: What about the role of the media? How does that influence public understanding of science?

JF: The next challenge is how people learn about research and scientific studies. Most people get their information from the media, and we all know what is happening with the media. Especially among younger people, the majority of news doesn’t come from newspapers or traditional TV news programs—it comes from social media platforms. These platforms often have their own agendas, influencing the way information is presented. As a result, the information people receive is filtered through the lens of what these platforms want to promote. This can lead to misinformation or biased perspectives dominating the narrative. I also think there is an issue with journalists, even those who are respected, when it comes to writing about science. They need to more fully understand how science actually works.

Q: What kind of training do you think journalists need?

JF: Journalists have a responsibility to treat all sides of a story fairly, rather than writing biased and slanted articles that support a preconceived narrative. When they don't, it misleads the public. I believe journalism schools should put more emphasis on science journalism and on how to better report on science.

Among scientists there is an awareness of something called confirmation bias. This bias means starting with a preconceived idea of how the world works, and then only accepting information that supports that idea while rejecting everything else. If journalists or media outlets do this, and that is the information being shared with the public, it’s easy to see why the public might be misled or confused. Why do people in general they think the way they do? Because this is the information they are getting.

Q: Beyond media and journalism, how should law enforcement and legal professionals engage with science?

JF: I think there should be training for law enforcement. From my work with police officers and in the police academy I know that exposure to certain aspects of science, particularly forensic science is needed, as much of police work now involves forensic science and understanding scientific evidence. Police need instruction in forensic science—understanding how evidence is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. This instruction should be an important component of the police academy curriculum.

Q: Do you think this need extends to judges as well?

JF: Absolutely. And this should be provided before someone becomes a judge. Judges will be evaluating cases in which forensic evidence is presented. They need to understand what forensic evidence is, when to trust it, and when not to trust it. They need to understand and be able to interpret expert witnesses for example. Therefore, they need training and education in this area as well.

Q: Do you believe these efforts should happen simultaneously?

JF: Yes, I believe all of these things are necessary and should be done together. Improving scientific literacy in schools, ensuring accurate science journalism, and providing specialized training for law enforcement and judges all need to happen concurrently in order to bridge the gap between science and society.

Q: I think these are great ideas you're sharing. It's a strange situation—society knows so little about science, yet it's science that helps improve their lives. At least, it should.

JF: Absolutely right. Just to give you an example of what people know or do not know -- we live in a community full of retired professionals, mostly older individuals around my age, with professional backgrounds. Last night, I asked them a few questions about science to gauge their understanding, and I was surprised by how uninformed they were about some basic concepts of science. Several of them were not clear on what “science” actually means. Some asked, “Is it all laboratory work?” Well, no, it is not just that. And some said in effect, “I don’t know about that; it’s only for trained scientists and doctors, so it doesn’t really concern me.” But as you pointed out, science impacts everyone’s life. The way we live, how long we live, and how we manage diseases or other issues all come from science.

Q: In your opinion, how can we increase scientific literacy in society? 

JF: It really comes down to education and accessible, understandable information. With respect to the latter point —when I worked with the Department of Justice, we frequently debated the way reports were written. The issue was, if you want the general population to understand something, you have to write it in a way that's accessible to them.

What researchers and scientists often do is write for other scientists, and not the general population. If you look at a typical scientific journal article, it is ’s filled with pages of statistical models and descriptions that the average person can’t even begin to understand, thus causing them to lose whatever interest they might have had quickly. The reason it is written this way is that it’s meant for other scientists—those are the people who decide on promotions, raises, and publications, and ultimately determine who gets more grants. In this sense, scientists themselves are at fault.

At the DOJ National Institute of Justice, they used to say, “Oh, we need to dumb down the report.” “Dumbed down” was the term they used. I would respond, as someone who teaches, that when you enter a classroom with students who are unfamiliar with the subject, you must present the information in a way they can grasp. If what you are saying is too complex for them to understand, you are not educating them at all—they won’t have any idea what you're talking about. The same principle applies to scientific reports. The findings must be communicated in a way that the average person can understand. This is one of the areas where scientific journalism can play a role.

Q: And you do it yourself. I was really impressed by one of your recent articles. Your work in the Results of Scholarly Work, 'Why People Obey or Do Not Obey the Law,' is an exceptional scientific essay that’s accessible to everyone and full of valuable ideas. Thank you for writing such a great article.

JF: Thank you very much. What I aimed to do was convey the message not just for high-level scientific experts, but for a broader audience. Otherwise, I would not be reaching very many people.

Q: You’ve touched on this a bit already, but I’d like to ask—how significant do you think the role of mass media is in shaping moral panic around science?

JF: It’s incredibly influential. As I mentioned, the media is the primary source of information for most people. Most people are not reading journal articles or scientific reports. Instead, they get their information from the internet, news programs, magazines, or newspapers, all of which, as I mentioned earlier, are filtered by whoever is posting that content. The choices made while writing those stories or posting that content shape the information that people ultimately receive.

And as I said, this ties into confirmation bias. People in the US often choose news programs that align with their beliefs. They watch certain TV networks because they agree with the philosophy or political stance of that network, and avoid those that challenge their preconceived notions. We all tend to do this — we gravitate toward information that reinforces what we already believe. It is somewhat natural, but we need to be aware of it. If you are aware of it, you can remind yourself that there might be other explanations or more to the story. If you truly want to be informed, you need to seek out different perspectives. Unfortunately, most people do not do that.

Q: How can scientists protect themselves from societal attacks and misinterpretations of their research?

JF: I think it would be difficult, but first and foremost, scientists need to be true to their work. They must be completely honest about what they are doing and reporting. I review articles submitted to journals, and I have seen cases where scientists manipulate data to produce desired results for publication. For instance, they may exaggerate sample sizes or suppress certain findings while emphasizing others. Some even adjust their hypotheses to fit their results, instead of starting with a hypothesis and either supporting or refuting it. Scientists must be transparent and truthful about their research.

Reviewers, like myself, also need to be honest. We should not just rely on the reputation of the person submitting the research, thinking, “I know this person, they always do good work, so I won’t question it.” And then there are well-known scientists at large labs or universities who may have many research assistants. Often, these scientists don’t actually conduct the research themselves; their assistants do, and they simply put their name on it without truly knowing the details. Scientists need to maintain their own integrity and ensure they are fully aware of the work being done under their name. If they expect the public to trust them, they must first be honest with themselves. If you are being deceptive yourself, how can you expect the public to believe your findings?

Q: As an expert in organized crime, have you ever been attacked for your criminology research in some cases?

JF: No, not directly. I have had concerns raised to me about studying organized crime, with some expressing that it could be a particularly dangerous area of research. However, I have never been directly threatened by anyone involved in organized crime. I am not sure if that’s because those involved didn’t read anything I wrote, so they didn’t know what I was doing? While one might expect such reactions if your work threatens someone's status or position, I have not faced any direct threats related to my research on organized crime.

Q: Talking about scientists who became politically charged throughout history, are there any examples in the USA or other countries?

JF: No, with the exception of the few examples I mentioned, such as the Scopes case, there is in the US at least, a strong focus on protecting people's information. There is much less of a tendency to politicize science. Science is mostly attacked based on its scientific merits, but not so much for political reasons. However, I know from experience in the Soviet Union, for example, that it was a very different situation. There was widespread suppression of all kinds of information, not just scientific, but anything that threatened the powers that be was suppressed. This is more subject to debate in the US, and while people argue about it, science isn't typically used as a political weapon against individuals here.

In the US, we've become deeply politically divided. Instead of seeing “Us” as a collective, it’s now “Us” versus “Them.” And this “Them” represents anyone with whom we disagree. What starts as a simple disagreement soon evolves into viewing “Them” not just as people with opposing views, but as enemies. Once this distinction is drawn, everything associated with the enemy gets labeled negatively, and this becomes problematic. We see examples of this in violence, such as when a man recently killed someone from the insurance industry because the company was denying medical care coverage. Violence has become a result of this divide, with people no longer just expressing their views verbally but resorting to violence against those with whom they disagree. Sadly, this has become an increasing pattern in this country.

I think that scientists, if they realize their work will challenge powerful political interests, need to be extremely cautious about how they conduct their research, what they report, and how they proceed. They should not be naive. Science, unfortunately, can be politicized and turned against them, which could lead to serious consequences, including threats. We have seen what can happen in situations like your case of Academician Oleg Maltsev, where this escalation occurs.

Q: Should science be influenced by politics?

JF: I believe that exposure is key. The European Academy of Sciences in Ukraine is already doing a great job by shedding light on what is happening in this Maltsev case. People need to understand the situation and recognize the possible dangers it poses. This is not just about one individual; if unwarrented actions are allowed to go unchecked, it could have far-reaching consequences. It could deter scientific progress, as researchers might become fearful or intimidated. Our goal should be to encourage scientific work, not to suppress it.

Q: Science has to be free from politics?

JF: Yes, science should be completely free from politics. The evaluation of scientific work should be based solely on scientific principles, the validity of methods, and honest reporting of results. Scientists themselves must act as the primary auditors, ensuring that scientific standards are upheld. When politicians get involved, it creates problems because they have their own agendas, which are often at odds with the goals of science. They may selectively use scientific findings to push their political agenda, which can then lead to unintended consequences.

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to Dr. James O. Finckenauer for sharing his invaluable insights and experiences in this thought-provoking discussion. His insights serve as a profound reminder of the importance of integrity and open dialogue in advancing knowledge. We thank him for his time and expertise in fostering a deeper understanding of these critical issues.