We'd like to believe the political blogosphere, and certainly the political populace, has confrontational overtones science does not, but who are we kidding?   If you get on the wrong side of a science blogging mullah's pet position, they will whip the faithful into a militant frenzy that would make any cult leader proud.

It's the science way; science is about clarity and facts and that means going after someone if they are wrong (and sometimes just if they disagree but that is less common) - the downside to that is it means everyone thinks they can tee off on scientists, including if the critics know nothing at all.

As RealClearScience Editor Dr. Alex Berezow notes in Extremists Dominate Public Science Debates, even a discussion about fertilizer can't be civil any more.   And the only thing worse for the reputation of science than scientists holding other scientists accountable for bad methodology is not holding them accountable, like in some instances of climate studies, because then everyone feels like they can disparage scientists regardless of whether the critics have any knowledge of simple physics or not.

Yet many in the public feel like science is some Old Boys Club where everyone is involved in a vast conspiracy to keep funding rolling.   And journalists and the public love their underdog narrative.    But nothing could be further from the truth and so I will share a secret I have learned over the last half decade of Science 2.0 - scientists hate each other.   Really.  Nothing makes a scientist happier than debunking another scientist.   They are not circling the wagons around anyone if they are wrong.    If there was really any scientific way to discredit evolution, or prove there is a God, or prove that pollution is not bad for the environment, the list of scientists lining up to do so would be so long you could see it from space.   They'd get the biggest Nobel prize ever.

But science is what it is, facts are facts and experts are experts whether you agree with them or not.    

We had one odd comment on an article about fish mutating to survive PCB poisoning in the Hudson river, demanding to know who funded the study.   Because, to them, whoever funded the study determined the results.    Well, it was Superfund and I doubt they were looking for ways to exonerate General Electric.   But I would not be surprised if that commenter still believes the government, or corporations, pay scientists to fabricate results because I have heard that same criticism from science writers too many times to count - if they disagreed with the results.   So two years ago the NIH and NSF only funded studies Republicans like but now they only fund studies Democrats like?  Is that what people think of science?   It is if that's what fellow scientists think.

As Berezow notes, it needs to stop but we can't simply mandate it.   If scientists want to be respected in the eyes of the public, they have to respect each other in things the public reads.   And that means using civil discourse even if the person on the other side disagrees on global warming or whatever the hot topic is, not stooping to calling them a neo-con or labeling them a Holocaust denier.

Basically, if we want people to stop smearing scientists for political expediency, scientists should make sure not to do it to each other for the same reasons.

That doesn't apply to the Andrew Wakefield's of the world, of course.  Scientists were first in line to discredit him even though it is progressives who believe most strongly in the autism-vaccine link.   And that's how it should be.