Exploring Experiences of Silencing and Exterior Pressure among Climate and Atmospheric Scientists

Silencing of researchers refers to informal or formal actions that restrict what scientists can study, say, publish, or teach. Reasons for silencing can be related to political, economic, or ideological interests. It is widely recognized as a threat to academic freedom and to the public’s access to independent knowledge.

Internationally, climate change research has been one of the topics most often targeted with silencing attempts. In the Finnish context, one branch of the polarized climate change discussion has revolved around forest management and use. In 2024, the national broadcasting company Yle brought up a story about silencing attempts of both individual researchers and academic institutions by forestry companies and their lobbying organizations but also by policymakers.

The equality and work wellbeing group at the Institute of Atmospheric and Earth System Research (INAR) of the University of Helsinki, Finland, wanted to find out how much our researchers have faced silencing attempts or exterior pressure, how it has affected them, and how they have reacted. We designed a short survey that was sent to all staff members.

We received a total of 55 answers (about 20% of the staff members). 13 respondents had personal experiences of pressure or silencing. In the majority of these experiences, the attempted suppressing came from within the academia, although a few reported silencing attempts also came from the public administration, private sector, and social media.

Reactions of the respondents who had experienced silencing or pressure varied from self-censorship and giving in to the pressure to having a dialogue with the source of the pressure. Discussions with peers were considered important.

In the survey, we also asked the respondents to suggest actions to make our work and research community stronger against such pressures. Three kinds of actions were suggested. First, education on the topic, focusing especially on early-career scientists and non-Finnish speakers. Second, provision of resources and tools for individual researchers, for example a guide for identifying this kind of pressure, common guidelines for responding to silencing attempts, as well as easy and anonymous channels for reporting. Third, introducing institutional policies and enhancing scientific culture, for example strengthening mentorship practices and peer support, and more ambitious promotion of open and honest science.

We presented the results of the survey in our institute’s weekly seminar. We had also three experts of experience sharing their stories, discussions in small groups, and an external expert’s note by a representative of the national committee for public information.

In conclusion, carrying out this survey was helpful for getting an idea of what kinds of silencing attempts our researchers experience and how common it is. It is clear that the consequences of this are serious for both the individual targeted scientists and the integrity of science. We need to respond as a research community, and we now have good ideas about how to do that.