David Robert Grimes, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford, UK, is an adamant defender of science, but the blog post he wrote in August caused quite a stir, even for him. Troubled by an upcoming vote by Dublin City Council on whether to stop fluoridating the city's water supply, in his post he implored councillors to heed evidence that fluoridated water helps to prevent and slow tooth decay. His contention that claims to the contrary are inflammatory, invalid and dishonest prompted critics around the world to call for his resignation, he says.

Grimes's experience may be extreme, but it serves as a reminder that publicly presenting controversial findings or opinions even if they are factually sound can leave one open to hostility. When it comes to speaking up, the uncomfortable reality is that sometimes scientists, especially those at trainee and junior levels, face a difficult choice: courting controversy can exact a career toll, but staying mute can lead to harmful policy decisions uninformed by science.


Early-career researchers who want to speak out must learn how best to communicate science and how to respond productively to criticism, experts say. Yet many young researchers engage the public armed with little communications or media training [ref omitted], and when wading into combustible topics such as climate change, evolution and public health, they quickly learn that science often runs counter to strongly held ideology.
