(NOTE: To our wonderful community of academics who have signed this petition, we are in awe of you. There are almost 2000 people who have signed this petition, including academics from all over the world. We include senior professors, untenured professors, and many postdocs, graduate students and academic staff. We are now removing the option for additional people to sign this petition for two reasons. First, we have made our voices heard, and we hope that this is the START of a pushback against the attempts by some to stifle dissenting voices in academia. Second, the organizers of this petition are overwhelmed with the task of carefully copying each signature from a spreadsheet, and redacting the names of those who want anonymity for fear of retribution. In the next few days, we will complete the task of adding all the signatures of people who have signed in the last 24+ hours)

To the Board of Directors, eLife and Erin O’Shea, President, HHMI:

We, the undersigned life scientists, are writing to express our view that Professor Michael Eisen's social media posts should not be grounds for removing him as eLife editor or otherwise censuring him  by HHMI. Eisen posted on twitter an article in The Onion satirizing the view that people should not be allowed to criticize Israeli actions until they first criticize Hamas.  Our opinion is not based on the merits (or lack thereof) of Eisen’s views. Rather, we believe that censuring Eisen would create a chilling effect on freedom of expression in academia.

To be clear, there are contexts in which it may be entirely appropriate to remove people from positions of leadership for their views -- even when those views are expressed in their role as private individuals and are otherwise within the bounds of the law. We can think of at least three such contexts.  

One is when a leader’s views are antithetical to the value or mission of the organization (e.g., thus a gun control lobby might remove a spokesperson who conveyed support for the NRA, and the NRA might remove someone who advocated for gun control). Another instance is when the leaders’ views reflect poorly on their professionalism or undermine their ability to do their job effectively. This is the case when the views suggest ignorance or poor judgment on issues that ought to be within their professional purview, or are explicitly disrespectful of superiors, colleagues or subordinates within an organization. A final context is when the views are hate speech: abusive and pejorative language based on people's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. In short, we believe that organizations have broad license to ensure that the professional and social mission of their institution is not undermined by individuals who are the public face of that organization.

It is another matter entirely when individuals might be removed for positions of leadership for expressing views that are a) independent of the mission or values of the organization; b) play no role in the individual's area of professional expertise; c) do not cast doubt on their professional qualifications; d) do not bad mouth other individuals in their organization, and e) are not hate speech. This is the context in which Michael Eisen may be asked to step down from his editorial position. This possibility is aligned with a culture of fear, intolerance and political repression. The spectre of losing positions of authority for questioning government policies has no place in a democracy, let alone within academia.

This is especially egregious in this instance because the threat to remove Eisen from his role is directly contrary to the mission and values of both eLife and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (a funder and founding member of the journal). The journal eLife is "committed to create a future where a diverse, global community of scientists and researchers shares open and trusted results for the benefit of the greater good" and HHMI writes in its mission statement: "We embed equity and inclusion into our vision of scientific excellence". It should go without saying that forcing scientists out of leadership positions because they express opposition to government policies is not equitable, inclusive, committed to a diverse, global community, or in the interest of the greater good. 

It's already apparent that a move to displace Eisen from his role will have ramifications beyond eLife and HHMI. Many of us have received private communications from graduate students, postdocs, and faculty members working at institutions in the USA describing the vulnerability they feel either because they support Palestinian human rights, or because of their Middle Eastern ethnic backgrounds. Many of them have mentioned the backlash against Eisen as a primary reason for their fears. For example, one trainee wrote: “after seeing what happened to Michael Eisen I am extremely worried about my career trajectory and future in the United States...I don’t feel safe as a Middle Eastern neuroscientist in the United States.” An Iranian faculty member commented that he left Iran for the US so that he could speak openly, but now finds himself unable to speak openly even in the US.

The right to express dissenting views is a cornerstone of our intellectual mission as scientists and citizens. Open debate in this country should never include promotion of violence, but it must allow the articulation of views that make some people uncomfortable. Censuring Eisen for expressing views uncomfortable to some would ally eLife and HHMI with one side of an ongoing political issue, create a chilling effect on open debate in American academia, and risk ushering in a new wave of McCarthy-esque targeting of peace activists. 

We urge eLife, HHMI, and other American academic institutions, not to censure Eisen or other scientists articulating legitimate (i.e. non-violent) political opinions. To do so harms the reputation of these institutions, places at particular risk the careers of junior scientists of diverse faiths and backgrounds, and undermines the free exchange of ideas necessary for scientific discovery.

(The undersigned include many junior colleagues who are afraid of retribution for expressing their opinions, so they have signed anonymously. This in itself speaks volumes)

Nancy Kanwisher, Professor, MIT

Josh Dubnau, Professor, Stony Brook School of Medicine.

Ken Miller, Professor of Neuroscience, Columbia University

Bence Ölveczky, Professor, Harvard

Alfonso Caramazza, Professor, Harvard University

Bevil Conway

John W. Krakauer, Professor, Johns Hopkins University

Joshua Tenenbaum, Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT

Grace Lindsay, Assistant Professor, New York University

Todd Gureckis

Wei Ji Ma, Professor, New York University

Dick Passingham, Emeritus Professor, University of Oxford

Anonymous, professor, University of Bristol