SHOULD scientists boycott Israel? The University and College Union, the UK鈥檚 largest trade union for academics, thinks the idea is worth talking about. On 30 May, it voted to open debate on plans to boycott Israeli universities and researchers in protest at what it calls the country鈥檚 鈥渄enial of education rights鈥� to Palestinians.
Other academic organisations oppose the idea. The day after the vote, the Royal Society said it opposed blanket academic boycotts. The International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies took a similar position in 2002. Both argue that because science is about free exchange of ideas 鈥� a lofty pursuit that benefits human rights 鈥� it should not be sacrificed for political ends.
That might make scientists feel good, but it ignores the bigger picture. All boycotts, not just scientific ones, are blunt weapons that are bound to damage someone鈥檚 rights. Cutting trade and aid links can hit a country鈥檚 poor harder than its government. Sporting bans wreck collaboration and openness just as an academic one would. The costs and benefits have to be weighed up in each case: the point is to exert maximum pressure on a government if it is thought to be intolerably violating human rights and lives.
Advertisement
There are times when this end justifies the means. One example was apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, when much of the world boycotted that country鈥檚 academics, sportspeople and commercial products. The question now is whether the Israeli government鈥檚 actions justify a similar approach. Some British researchers, including the biologist Richard Dawkins, have already framed the question this way. Dawkins is critical of Israeli policies, but concludes that an academic boycott is not justified. He represents the views of many scientists, although a notable minority does support a boycott.
Discussion of the issue needs to take place along similar lines. Are Israel鈥檚 actions serious enough to warrant withdrawing cooperation with colleagues there? Remember that the goal is to end a 40-year cycle of violence and deaths of both Palestinians and Israelis. Some scientists will feel the situation is not serious enough for a boycott to be appropriate. Some will argue that it would be ineffective. Others will say that it is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who need to be pressured into change. These may be legitimate positions, but to argue that science is some sort of special case is not.