Allyship: Fostering Welcoming Spaces

Tamar Schlekat, SETAC

What a couple of weeks it has been for SETAC! I, for one, am highly energized from having just attended the SETAC Europe 32nd Annual Meeting and then the NonTarget Analysis for Environmental Risk Assessment SETAC Focused Topic Meeting. It is always invigorating to go to SETAC meetings, feel the excitement, learn the latest science, meet the humans behind it, listen to the debates, and have those “a-ha” moments. SETAC meetings are also loads of fun where we connect with friends and make new ones. But the strength in SETAC’s core value of bringing together differing perspectives to advance environmental quality through science can also be one of its biggest challenges.

If you have witnessed or experienced incivility, microaggression harassment or bullying at SETAC, please report your concerns.

I thought I would take a moment to reflect on some uncomfortable situations involving incivility that I have experienced directly or indirectly at meetings and use this as a space to explore how we can advance scientific discourse while maintaining a welcoming atmosphere at SETAC and elsewhere.

At my first meeting as a student, I proposed a slight modification – an upgrade if you will – of a theory common at the time. At the end of my talk, one of the researchers behind the original theory very rudely dismissed the research I presented without any supporting reasoning. Certainly, technical comments that advance discussion are welcome in a session, but it is not appropriate to lambast presentations or offer dogmatic opinions. Not only can that slow down scientific advances, but it could thwart individuals from pursuing their research or sharing their findings and dampen the tone and tenor of the rest of the session. It goes without saying that we should all be willing to have our ideas challenged so we can advance the discipline collaboratively.

Years later, I watched one senior consultant attempt to ridicule another during the Q&A after a presentation for doing something that both knew was impractical but was required by regulatory guidelines. Since then, I’ve heard of several such incidences where the Q&A is used not for posing thoughtful questions but to pontificate or show off. We should all think before we speak and keep to engaging scientific questions, which are more prevalent at SETAC. There is no room at the microphone for dismissiveness, condescension or rude commentary. Civil discourse is a much more constructive way to advance research.

I have witnessed individuals personally attacking other scientists, insinuating that they are corrupt and that their research is tainted by the source of their funding. I have also heard some offering other researchers the opinion that they are not good scientists and will never succeed. That is certainly not advancing science or doing anyone any good. Comments in a scientific forum, such as scientific conferences, should center on the research, not the individuals and should be based on data and facts. We should focus on providing constructive feedback in a respectful manner that helps uplift the work.

We should all strive to be allies. At SETAC, we are exploring ways to raise awareness regarding microaggressions and incivility and to guide members to be better allies. We are considering how to train session chairs on reigning in “Q&A bullies” and society leaders on mediating uncomfortable interactions. At a minimum, we should all have the tools to divert the conversation. If we feel up to it, we could have a quiet word with a colleague, while giving them grace, if we notice that their comments or actions are unhelpful or offensive. Peer-to-peer conversations are quite effective. Certainly, individuals should be given the benefit of the doubt, it’s possible that passion has clouded judgement when choosing language. Likely, they are not aware of the harm they are causing. The goal should always be to point out and correct behavior; not shame or punish.

These instances of incivility break our code of conduct and code of ethics. Moreover, when there are differences between the target and the transgressor, they can often be a microaggression.

While we have all seen questionable interactions at SETAC, which is but a microcosm of society at large, most of our members engage one another admirably. They focus on the science, question the methodology not the person, and work with each other on solutions to some of the most challenging issues facing this planet.

All SETACers are expected to abide by the SETAC code of conduct and code of ethics and engage in respectful scientific debate. Most importantly, we should all strive to embody the SETAC values of inclusion and civil discourse and create and enjoy a welcoming SETAC.

If you have witnessed or experienced incivility, microaggression, harassment or bullying at SETAC, please report your concerns.

Author contact: [email protected]