News

---

Added December 31 2012:

"The cardinal law... contains a provision that gives the Parliament its own military, a Parlia-military"

"it seems increasingly likely that the Hungarian government is heading toward the creation of a police state"

(K. L. Scheppele)

---

I’ve just read the timely recent observations in Hungarian Spectrum by Princeton University's international constitutional scholar, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele, as well as her earlier excellent lecture on the new Hungarian constitution (delivered at CEU nearly a year ago).

Professor Scheppele's insights were and continue to be astute. But one point on which she does not seem to be realistic is her insistence that the problem of undoing the profound damage being done in Hungary by the current governing party's electoral supermajority and its increasingly autocratic leader's use of that supermajority power can and hence must be solved by Hungarians alone.

On the contrary, Hungary’s long history of red/white polarization and scape-goating has clearly culminated, in the latest pendulum swing, in the entrenchment of the white side’s ideology — a primitive, parochial, petty, punitive and increasingly paranoid world-view — in a quackish new constitution drafted, adopted and since amended at will nearly 2000 times by the governing party's supermajority.

Undoing this systematic, cumulative and self-perpetuating damage would require far more substantial and unified internal opposition now than Hungary seems capable of mustering (including the election of a supermajority in the opposite direction, under increasingly self-serving election restrictions voted into law at will by the ruling supermajority).

If global scrutiny and support on behalf of democracy and justice are not ratcheted up dramatically, Hungary will become ever more inextricably engulfed by the opportunistic tar-baby that a plurality made the fateful mistake of embracing in 2010.

(International sanctions would certainly be infinitely preferable to an unopposed descent into dictatorship -- or to civil war.)

On Monday November 26 2012, a Hungarian MP, Márton Gyöngyösy, deputy leader of the extreme right "Jobbik" Party, called for the creation of a race-based list, on the grounds of risks to Hungarian national security.

This all-too-familiar burst of base bigotry from the Jobbik party in Hungary's parliament has deflected attention from an even more ominous event that passed unnoticed, in the very same place, on the very same day: Electoral gerrymandering designed to keep the governing Fidesz Party in power.

As Marton Dornbach points out below in his remarkably insightful commentary from the Hungarian Spectrum -- reproduced in full and slightly updated by the author -- Fidesz is just playing "good cop" to Jobbik's "bad cop".

The two right-wing parties are only distinguishable by the fact that Jobbik's hallmark is psychopathic bigotry, whereas Fidesz's hallmark is psychopathic opportunism. Both are sinking Hungary deeper and deeper, downward and backward, toward an ugly, resentful autocracy and xenophobia to which Hungary is no stranger, and from which it has not yet made the sincere effort to dissociate itself that has been made by the other nations of Europe.

Hungary has a majority of decent, fair-minded people, like every other nation in the world. It is not beyond hope that world outrage at this pair of incidents may help them to rally against these two pernicious parties, Fidesz and Jobbik, that have already done Hungary so much harm, and oust them decisively, once and for all, in the next election, despite Fidesz's shameless and disgraceful efforts to make this so much more difficult to do.

---

Marton Dornbach: "The thing that is really important here, in my opinion, is not that Márton Gyöngyösi is a Nazi. Most of us realized a while ago that Jobbik is a virulently racist Neo-Nazi party. This is no news. It is also no news, unfortunately, that the ruling party is willing to go to great lengths to avoid unequivocal and firm condemnation of Nazi talk (incidentally, the most disgracefully equivocal part of Zsolt Németh’s response was the formulation he chose: he said the number of Jews in government “is not particularly closely related” to the severity of the conflict in the Middle East /”nem nagyon kapcsolódik ahhoz”/)

"No, the most newsworthy aspect of this incident is the timing. Gyöngyösi’s statements came five days after the ceasefire in Gaza was announced. So there was nothing particularly topical about his sick proposal. In any case, thugs like him never needed a pretext for Jew-baiting. Why now then?

"Well, it so happens that, on the very same day that MGy made this demented proposal, the Fidesz supermajority put a stake through the barely-beating heart of Hungarian democracy by abolishing universal voting rights and introducing an exceptionally restrictive form of mandatory voter registration. You wouldn’t know this from the foreign media coverage of the Monday parliamentary session; but that’s precisely the point. Especially in the international media, but in Hungary too, the abolition of universal voting rights was completely eclipsed by this Nazi provocation. After all, viewed from London or Washington or Brussels it is so much easier to relate to Nazism than to election technicalities in a small country. So much easier for journalists to cover the former than the latter.

"But let’s put things in perspective. Unfortunately, there always were and perhaps there always will be sick racists who harbor genocidal fantasies. The fact that Hungarian society as a whole fails to ostracize such people and/or treat them as psychiatric cases is a sign of a civilizational breakdown. However, there is no real danger of Gyöngyösi’s proposal being implemented (although in this respect we all know that nothing is impossible). Without denying that anti-Semitism is alarmingly widespread in Hungary and has a potential to produce violent outbursts, I think it is safe to say that the only group of people in Hungary that faces systematic discrimination and harassment on account of ethnic origins is the Roma. So we should see MGy’s statement as a purely symbolic act of transgression whose sole purpose was to shock and draw attention.

"Unlike MGy’s proposal, the election law passed on the very same day is certain to have very real future consequences. It drastically reduces the chances of Orban’s opposition. Let’s be clear about this: the introduction of severely restrictive voter registration rules in a country with a perfectly well-functioning central registry is an unprecedented disgrace. It is the most overt violation of basic democratic principles even in the sordid record of the Orban regime’s power grab. This is the outrage that is being overlooked amid the (absolutely justified) uproar about the latest Nazi provocation by Jobbik. Look at the foreign coverage of what happened on Monday in the Hungarian parliament: there is no reference to the election law, no reference to Zsolt Nemeth’s appalling non-response, while most outlets state that the Hungarian government has condemned the provocation “in the strongest terms” (if only!) The whole story is a PR coup for Fidesz. In keeping with the line of defense adopted by numerous diplomatic and journalistic apologetes of the regime, this incident has given Fidesz yet another opportunity to play good cop to Jobbik's s bad cop.

To conclude, I find it almost impossible not to raise the obvious, admittedly speculative, question: Cui bono? Who is benefitting from all of this? To my mind at least the timing of this crass provocation invites the conjecture that there may be (tacit or not-so-tacit) co-operation between the Neo-Nazi Jobbik party and the ruling Fidesz supermajority. And let’s not forget here two points: it is not inconceivable that Fidesz may need to form a coalition with Jobbik to stay in power after 2014; and Jobbik is the other party, beside Fidesz, which stands to gain from the new voter registration rules.
      -- original comment, edited by the author, Marton Dornbach

---

Here is some background reading on last year's symptoms of Hungary's downward trajectory already noted in this blog:

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Hungary's Philosophy Affair: Bringing It All Out Into The Open

Open Letter to President of Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Response of President of Hungarian Academy of Sciences

The Hungarian Philosopher Affair: On Nyiri on Martyrdom

The Hungarian Philosopher Affair: On Hornok on 1919

The Hungarian Philosopher Affair: On Vancsó on Smoke Screens

The Hungarian Philosopher Affair: On "Magyar" On White Collar Crime

Quod Erat ad Demonstrandum (QED)

The straw poll on whether or not to continue the American Scientist Open Access (AmSci) Forum (and if so, who should be the new moderator) is complete (the full results are reproduced at the end of this message).

The vote is for (1) continuing the Forum, under (2) the moderatorship of Richard Poynder.

The AmSci list has now been migrated to http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal where the BOAI list is also being hosted.

AmSci Forum members need not re-subscribe. All subscriptions have been automatically transferred to the new host site.

The name of the list has been changed to the Global Open Access List (GOAL) to reflect the fact that Open Access is no longer just an American or a Scientific matter. It has become a global movement.

The old AmSci Forum Archives (1998-2011) will stay up at the Sigma Xi site (indefinitely, I hope -- though we do have copies of the entire archive).

The new GOAL archive is at: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/

Stevan Harnad

---

Below are the complete results of Straw Poll on whether to continue the Forum, and on who should be the new moderator:

AGAINST CONTINUING AMSCI:

ARIF JINHA: I believe it would be better to have one forum, the BOAI. This forum has developed a doctrinal bias defined by the values and personality of its leadership. Though the leadership is to be commended for its credibility and vigour, it is not without its blind spots. It has not always OPEN to a diversity of perspectives. AMSCI is driven by assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing. The rush to conclusion on the right path is premature and overly authoritative in its expression, therefore it is alienating. In truth, we have only really got started with the web in the last 10 years and authority is completely flattened by the learning curve. The BOAI is much wider in its representation of Open Access alternatives, it is therefore more neutral as well as having a wider reach for the promotion of Green OA. It means less duplication and less work devoted to instant communication, giving more time to develop a rigorous and scientific approach to meta-scholarship in the digital age.

FOR CONTINUING AMSCI:

DANA ROTH: I would disagree with Arif Jinha, in that it is the 'assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing' that make AMSCI such an interesting listserv.

SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM: First, I wish to express my grateful thanks to Stevan for all that he has done so far, and in particular for moderating this Forum for so long and so well. That he will continue to devote much of his time to promoting open access and institutional repositories gives me strength to do the same. Second, if Richard Poynder agrees (or if we could persuade him) to moderate this list, there is nothing like it. The baton would have moved to safe hands. Not only he has the stamina of a long distance runner, but he is also endowed with the qualities needed for a moderator. He is knowledgeable and levelheaded. Welcome Richard!

DOMINIQUE BABINI: Discussions and ideas in this forum are also inspiring for regional OA forums and lists, e.g., the Latin America and the Caribbean Open Access List (LLAAR, in Spanish). Thank you, Stevan, for your dedication as moderator all these years, and especially for your new OA initiatives and ideas. Thank you for your Skype contribution at the OA Experts Meeting last week in UNESCO headquarters, where we missed you [in person].  I also support Richard Poynder as [new] moderator for this Forum. 

MICHAEL E. SMITH: I am in favor of continuing the list, and either of the people you mentioned as potential moderators would be good choices.

PAOLA GARGIULO: I also agree that the list should continue. I'm in favour or Richard Poynder as moderator. Hope you will continue to contribute.

PETER SUBER: If Richard is willing to moderate, I vote for him.  I second Alma's reasons why Richard would do well in this role.  I second Arthur's best wishes to you, and I second (or third) Barbara and Hélène's tribute to your work.  Finally, as the former moderator of SOAF and BOAI, I welcome you to civilian life.  It's amazing what one can do when one has more time to do it.

BERNARD RENTIER: I vote for Richard Poynder. The excellence of his critical and fair papers speaks for his designation. If he is willing to do that, I am sure he will be an outstanding moderator. And that this will let Stevan be even more tirelessly to the point in every debate!

TOM COCHRANE: The value of the Forum cannot be overstated. It has provided a unique service in assessing the events and health of OA developments. It would be a regressive step in several ways if it were to fall over. It is not too much to claim that its way of charting developments, alerting readers to new issues, identifying useful research and work on OA, and in your hands, reminding its readership of the main issues – all these have had a direct impact on practical developments. This has occurred to a degree that no single one of us – from whatever part of the world -  can comprehensively take in. But believe me, it has played a vital role. But individual workloads need to be shared, and we at QUT understand your reasoning. We are happy with the Richard Poynder suggestion.

ELOY RODRIGUES: I also support Richard Poynder for moderator. I strongly support the continuation of the AmSci Forum, and I regret your decision of stepping down as moderator (even though I understand your reasons, and I do hope that it will turn out the right decision for you, and your efforts for OA progress). Thanks for your tireless work for Open Access! All the best (from Rio de Janeiro, where I was also archivangilizing for ID/OA mandates, at the Portuguese-Brazilian OA conference).

KEITH JEFFERY: I am sorry it has come to this; you know I support your point of view and moderation does require correction of misconceptions as well as just posting. I wish the Amsci list to continue and Richard is, of course, an excellent choice as future moderator.

ANDREW A ADAMS: I am in favour of the forum continuing to operate. I feel Richard would make an excellent new moderator.

PIPPA SMART: I am in favour of the forum continuing and would be very happy for Richard Poynder to moderate.

MARC COUTURE: I definitely wish the forum to continue. I may be only the occasional contributor, but I've always been a very steady reader. As to you not being the moderator anymore, I think it's even a good thing, not because I share the opinion that a moderator should be neutral and discreet, but because it will spare you some precious time you could devote to useful purposes, OA-related or not. Note that I assume we will continue to benefit, in the forum, from the seemingly inexhaustible energy and the flawless, razor-sharp logic of our "weary" archivangelist.

BARRY MAHON: As a long time stirring stick in the OA (hard to know what word to use to describe it) world, and having crossed swords with both Stevan and Richard over the years, I have a heavy heart in accepting Stevan's decision but an uplift that Richard has volunteered. It will, I wish, go on....and I'll be there, or here, whichever is the more appropriate.

JEAN-CLAUDE GUÉDON: I also think this list should go on. And  having Richard or Thomas moderate is a good idea too.

BOB PARKS: Congratulations on stepping down. I hope it gives you more time to pursue OA!!! Either Krichel or Poynder would be a good moderator.  I fear that Krichel is over committed.

HEATHER MORRISON: Thanks very much for moderating the list all these years! I hope that the list will continue, and would support either Richard Poynder or Thomas Krichel as moderators.

SALLY MORRIS: The support for Richard as moderator of the continuing list seems clear. We really don't need to see all the messages - I thought that was the point of keeping them off the list?

THOMAS KRICHEL: I think it should continue, as it appears to be the largest and most active forum.  I volunteer to do it….  If Richard wants to do it, I'd be happy not to.

RICHARD POYNDER: Well I certainly vote for it to continue. I would even put my name down for the moderator's hat if it was felt appropriate for a journalist to run such a forum, and people believed I could do the job adequately

ALMA SWAN: I am writing to nominate Richard Poynder as the new moderator for the AmSci Forum. I think he brings the right qualities - amongst them honesty, fairness, intellectual curiousness and efficiency - and is hugely respected as an independent, critical thinker on the issues that AmSci covers. I want the Forum to continue because it is a real discussion list rather than a bulletin board…

HELENE BOSC: In memory of the remarkable work done by Stevan Harnad for Open Access through this list, during 14 years, I wish it continues... Richard Poynder would be a perfect moderator!

BARBARA KIRSOP: If Stevan feels he can better operate in support of OA not as the moderator, then it would be great indeed if Richard Poynder would adopt the mantle. I think AMSCI should continue. I am somewhat in favour of a name change to highlight OA rather than the US - a name change could be a mini-re-launch perhaps and bring in new contributors - a fitting tribute to Stevan's past efforts.

ARTHUR SALE: May I wish you the best as non-moderator. It is the right decision for you, I think. This may be a shock to you that I think that it is a plus, but I think we need to get new ideas into the OA transition, and you have done your bit and a lot more… and perhaps I can even convince you eventually that the Titanium Road is the way to go now! You will be bombarded with messages begging you to reconsider, but I do think it is the right decision. Then you can enjoy being yourself without constraint. No one person can bear the weight of the world, not even Atlas.

IRYNA KUCHMA: The AmSci Open Access Forum is an active discussion forum (SOAF and BOAI are more like the announcement lists) and my answer is (1) definitely to continue. It's sad that you've decided to step down as a moderator. I wish I could help you with moderating it, but I am travelling a lot and sometimes not able to moderate the BOAI on time…. Hope you will find the ways to continue.

EUGENE GARFIELD: When I think about Stevan Harnad another information pioneer comes to mind. The Belgian documentalist Paul Otlet. His collaborator Henri LaFontaine,  received the Nobel Peace Prize. That's the kind of recognition that Stevan deserves.

MICHAEL KURTZ: I liked that AMSCI reflected your point of view, I value that,
and expect I will always.  I hope I will always be able to discover
it, perhaps you will frequently post.

THIERRY CHANIER : First of all, I would like to deeply thank Stevan  for his  continuous work over these more than 10 years. This forum is a very important place where supporters of OA can find information, and share their actions. I would be happy if Richard Poynder becomes our moderator. As Barbara (Kirsop) put it : it may be time to change the name of our forum, forget the American qualifier in order  to reflect its international wider status.

TONY HEY: I think that Stevan must take some credit from the UK Government's decision to insist on open access to publications and data ... Well done Stevan and thanks for all your tireless proselytizing on behalf of open access!

In September 2011 the AmSci Open Access Forum went into its 14th year. I think I have been moderating the Forum long enough, and so I'm stepping down as moderator, effective the end of December.

Subscribers will vote on whether to continue the AmSci Forum or whether the other two OA Forums (SOAF and BOAI) are now sufficient to air views on OA.

I will of course remain active in OA and will be posting to the existing Forums (and AmSci, if it continues) and/or the OA Archivangelism blog whenever the spirit moves or the occasion calls!

Stevan Harnad

Assuming the world has not gone entirely bonkers (and the US Attorney's Office has not contracted terminal wikileakimania), the charges against Aaron Swartz will be dropped...

[UPDATE (2013): Alas, they were not, with tragic results: Adam Swartz 1986-2013]

...as they have been by JSTOR once it becomes clear that he was (as I hope!) only data-mining what he downloaded, not redistributing it.

Breaking into a locked room and computer at MIT is not ethical except if something far more important and justifiable is at stake -- but Swartz will be pardoned for that peccadillo too.

Yet access to retroactively scanned journal article databases is definitely not the same sort of "primal right" as access to current, born-digital articles, where the access is willingly provided by their authors, at no cost to themselves or the user.

In other words, author give-away is not the same thing as user rip-off.

Back-scanning and archiving services may well be over-charging, substantially, relative to their expenses, and that should be challenged and remedied, but the remedy is not theft.

I hope the JSTOR downloading caper will not be conflated or even associated with the legitimate worldwide efforts by researchers to give and get open access to one another's own refereed research.

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

Richard Poynder:
"Peter Suber: Leader of a Leaderless Revolution"
Open and Shut [& Information Today]
1 July 2011.
Congratulations to Richard Poynder for another timely, incisive and insightful OA interview.

And heartfelt admiration and gratitude to the undisputed leader of the leaderless OA revolution, Peter Suber!

…Which doesn't prevent me from mentioning two minor strategic matters!

(1) It is a good idea to recommend, as Peter does, that non-Green publishers channel any opposition or apprehension they may have concerning OA or Green OA self-archiving mandates into embargoing Green OA self-archiving instead of lobbying against Green OA self-archiving mandates.

But I don't think it's a good idea to encourage Green OA publishers like Springer (or Elsevier, or APS or any of the other 60% of publishers who are already Green on immediate, unembargoed Green OA self-archiving) to backslide into embargoes rather than lobby against Green OA self-archiving mandates!

Let those publishers who wish to lobby against Green OA self-archiving mandates do so, if they wish. The benefits -- to research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, the R&D industry, students, and the tax-paying public -- are so overwhelming that lobbying against Green OA mandates is extremely unlikely to be successful, especially regarding institutional mandates. For whereas not all research is funded, virtually all of it, funded and unfunded, originates from universities and research institutions. Anti-mandate lobbying has had some success in delaying the adoption of Green OA self-archiving mandates at the government funder level, but it has no leverage at the institutional level.

(2) The broad-spectrum, low-selectivity, pass/fail mega-journal certainly has a potential niche today (whether OA or non-OA), but not only is that not the only way, the best way, or the most economical way for researchers to provide OA for their articles (Green OA self-archiving is), but it does not provide the level of quality control that the users of the top journals in each field need and depend on: Deferring that for "postpublication" peer review is not only the equivalent of embargoing it (and with a much less certain outcome), but it deprives authors of the level of immediate scrutiny and feedback that they expect and need from today's top journals, while also depriving users of the immediate indicators of a paper's quality level.

The immediate purpose of OA is to free the entire hierarchy of peer reviewed journals, such as they are, from access-barriers for all potential users: the purpose is not to flatten the peer review quality hierarchy and wait for pot-luck thereafter!

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

Richard Poynder Interview
Open Access by Numbers
Open and Shut, 19 June 2011 "Few can now doubt that open access (OA) to scholarly research is set to become an important feature of the scholarly communication landscape. What is less certain is how much of the world’s research literature is currently available on an OA basis, how fast OA is growing, and what percentage of the world’s academic and scientific literature will be OA in the long-term."

---

Figure 1. Springer Gold OA growth curve S (20% per year) and simulated Björk growth curve B (30% per year) (Laakso et al 2011) equated for year 2009. Note that the Björk curve would reach 100% Gold OA for all journals (ISI + non-ISI) in 2022, at a time when the Springer curve would not yet have reached 40% for ISI journals. Laakso et al's estimate of 30% Gold OA growth and Springer's estimate of 20% Gold OA growth can be reconciled if we note that the 30% rate was as of 2000, and has slowed to 20% as of 2005. More important, either way, the Björk curve would not reach 60% till 2019, and the Springer curve would not reach 60% till 2025, whereas the four mandated repositories had already reached 60% in 2004-2006, within two years of having adopted their mandates (Figure 2, below).

Figure 2. Percent green OA self-archiving averaged for the four institutions with the oldest self-archiving mandates, compared to the percentage for control articles from other institutions published in the same journals (for years 2002-2009, measured in 2011). Respective totals are derived from Thompson-Reuters-ISI index. Mandates triple the percent Green OA (Figure 3, below).

Figure 3. Yearly increase in the number of Green OA self-archiving mandates adopted by institutions and funders (data from ROARMAP).

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

Bohannon, John (2011) Hungarian Academicians Blast Government Over Inquiry Into Research Funds. ScienceInsider February 4, 2011

"An ugly political situation in Hungary has spilled over into academia, prompting an investigation of supposed financial misdeeds on one side and claims of harassment on the other. Humanities scholars are under investigation by the government for alleged misuse of research funds. But their supporters say they are the target of a government crackdown on critics..."

First, heartfelt thanks to John Bohannon at ScienceInsider for being the first English-language journalist to give these sad and worrisome developments in Hungary the international attention they so urgently needed.

Let me try to describe the situation in a nutshell in 14 points, and then encourage all viewpoints to express themselves at the ScienceInsider site, openly -- and then let the world scientific/scholarly community draw its own conclusions.

1. Hungary is a small country with a difficult historical past and a language comprehensible only to its native populace and a very few courageous foreigners.

2. In this closed system an ever-repeating cycle has evolved in which there is extreme polarization ("us vs them") and blame for most problems is laid on the "enemy," with most efforts directed toward punishing the enemy instead of solving the problem.

3. The polarization divides roughly along right-wing and "left-liberal" lines, but these are not quite the same as they are in western europe and north america -- as will become evident if this discussion manages to bring the voices -- which are currently expressing themselves only in Hungarian -- out into the open.

4. I will point out only that the current government is right-wing, and has shown some inclination lately to control the press more than any other western democracy. I will also point out that the former government was left-wing, and highly corrupt. The government before that one was likewise corrupt, and that government happened to be the very same government as the current government. And before that was the communist government, for about four decades, likewise corrupt. And before that was the wartime Fascist government, likewise corrupt…

5. So mutual accusations of corruption are completely uninformative and unhelpful.

6. The present "philosopher affair" concerns this same recurrent pattern: The Hungarian research grant system is extremely inefficient (as it is in many countries, but probably even moreso in Hungary), as well as very low on funds (as it is in many countries, but probably moreso in Hungary) because of the global financial crisis. The philosopher affair concerns alleged irregularities connected with research funding.

7. All researchers, everywhere, complain about the funding system: It is unfair. It gives too much money to unworthy projects; it is biassed; some research and researchers are favoured over others. Let's call these complaints that rival researchers (and rival research fields) make about one another all the time, everywhere, the "generic" complaints.

8. Researchers (and their institutions, and also their funders and funding systems) are also notorious for being sloppy and inefficient (they miss deadlines, they over- or under-spend budgets, they make accounting and reporting errors, etc.). This too is familiar. But researchers are also mostly honest, everywhere, and they try to remedy their sloppiness once it is pointed out -- or if the system becomes sufficiently efficient to make sure slip-ups are prevented from happening in the first place. Let's call these complaints about the implementation and efficiency of compliance with the funding system "systemic" complaints.

9. In addition, there occasionally occurs a genuine instance of major and intentional misuse of research funds on the part of researchers. If researchers do something that is against the rules of the research funding, their funds are revoked and they may have to pay a penalty. Let us call accusations of having done something like this accusations of "rule-breaking."

10. If the intentional researcher malfeasance is not only rule-breaking, but against the law, then the researchers are taken to court. But such things are very rare, and serious, so charges of having done illegal things are not made lightly. Let us call accusations of having done something like this accusations of "criminality."

11. Now it can be stated what is at issue in the philosopher affair in Hungary: A small number of philosophers has been singled out and accused of a bundle of things, but it is not in the least clear whether the things in the bundle are in the first two categories (generic and systemic complaints) or the second two categories (rule-breaking or criminal charges). The evidence has not been made known. The accusations are blurred and keep mutating. What is aired is mostly just generic and systemic complaints familiar to every funded researcher in the world -- and those do not distinguish the accused philosophers in any way from any other funded researcher anywhere on the planet -- and yet the blurred bundle keeps being treated as rule-breaking or criminal charges, and indeed police have been called in to investigate (with no result, other than researcher harassment by police investigations). They have also been looked into by a governmental research funding overseer (Gyula Budai).

12. The researchers involved are reputable researchers of long standing, some of them world famous. It is not stated why they were singled out for these accusations. The accusations and their targets are not the result of a global, systematic, random audit to detect malfeasance, within or between fields: They are simply a heterogeneous and constantly changing bundle of ad hoc accusations, levelled against these philosophers out of the blue, and then turned into a sustained press campaign of presumptive criminality and vilification by the Government-associated right wing press.

13. Since all the accused are of the "left-liberal" persuasion, and the two that are widely known internationally are also prominent critics of the current government (but also of past governments, including left-wing ones), the most likely hypothesis is that the accusations are yet again the result of Hungary's unfortunate tendency to blame problems (in this case the inefficiency of the funding system? the corruption of the prior government?) on the "enemy," and to punish the enemy for them -- instead of solving the problem (by reforming the funding system, if that is the problem).

14. All indications -- and of course this is the most worrisome aspect of it all -- are that the campaign of accusation, police-intervention, and press vilification are taking place with the encouragement and involvement of the government, bent, yet again, on punishing its predecessors, critics and other "enemies" rather than on using their turn in office to solve the ongoing problems of the country -- and on setting an example of governing uncorruptly.

Discussion -- but temperate discussion only -- is now invited at the ScienceInsider site from all sides.

---

In addition to the Open Letter to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences from External and Honorary members calling on the Academy's President, Jozsef Palinkas, to take a stand in support of the accused philosophers and against the campaign of harassment (January 28), an Open Letter from members of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association was also sent to the Academy's President on February 2.

There is also a petition that can be signed by all supporters of the Hungarian philosophers worldwide.

---

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

NYIRI (full posting):
“The basic fact here is that we do not know the facts. There is a police investigation underway which will sooner or later uncover, or not uncover, facts. Then there might be, or not be, court proceedings. Then we will know what the facts, if there are facts, amount to. We have no reason to believe that the Hungarian judicial system is basically or systematically flawed. From a distance, it appears that a group of people who are closely interconnected have some years ago received an abnormally high amount of project sums, with unconvincing research topics. That at least some of those sums were spent in irregular ways might well turn out to be the case. -- I have been the director of the Institute for Philosophical Research between 1995 and 2005. Also, I am a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. My own problem with the Heller group has nothing to do with the present allegations, which might turn out to be untrue, or even true (a nasty alternative). The controversy I for years had with them is about output in philosophy being subject to scientific criteria. They maintain it is not. I maintain it is. Obviously the answer here will affect jobs and money. This is the real issue - everything else is a smoke screen, a phoney discussion, and a martyrdom act.”

---

Quote/commentary on Nyri posting:

The following is posted with permission from a recent email exchange with Professor Nyiri:

NYIRI (Jan 28):
"Stevan, you are making a bad mistake. You should not protest when not knowing the facts. The facts are not at all unambiguous."

HARNAD (Feb 2):
"I am prepared to correct my mistake. Could you please write me the facts?"

NYIRI (Feb 2):
"Dear Istvan, the basic fact of course is that we do not know the facts. That is why I suggested that rush action should be halted. There is a police investigation underway which will sooner or later uncover, or not uncover, facts. Then there might be, or not be, court proceedings. Then we will know what the facts, if there are facts, amount to. We have no reason to believe that the Hungarian judicial system is basically or systematically flawed. --- On a less formal level, let me say that clearly a group of people who are closely interconnected have some years ago received an abnormally high amount of project sums, with unconvincing research topics. That at least some of those sums were spent in irregular ways seems to be clear. --- Finally, and this is something you should please not quote: Heller and company are, all contrary appearances notwithstanding, entirely continuous with Rakosi and Kadar. To this day, they are terrorizing Hungarian intellectual life. The issue is whether they will remain in a position to continue to do so. Warm regards, Kr."

NYIRI (Feb 2):
"On second thoughts, you can quote, if you want to, the Rakosi and Kadar bits."

End of email exchange.

HARNAD:
The reader may wish to compare the end of the posted version of Professor Nyiri's statement with the end of the email version, below [emphasis added]:

NYIRI POSTING (Feb 4):
"My own problem with the Heller group has nothing to do with the present allegations… The controversy I for years had with them is about output in philosophy being subject to scientific criteria. They maintain it is not. I maintain it is. Obviously the answer here will affect jobs and money. This is the real issue - everything else is a smoke screen, a phoney discussion, and a martyrdom act."

NYIRI EMAIL (Feb 2):
"Heller and company are, all contrary appearances notwithstanding, entirely continuous with Rakosi and Kadar. To this day, they are terrorizing Hungarian intellectual life. The issue is whether they will remain in a position to continue to do so."

HARNAD:
I leave it to the reader to judge the degree to which this sort of thinking is illustrative of the very sad and worrisome "us vs. them" score-settling tendency (stretching back 97 years or beyond, in the view of Professor Hornok) that I described in my opening posting "Bringing It All Out Into the Open."

(I will add only that it is not at all apparent how Professor Nyiri's response -- that he won top points in an impeccable and transparent selection process for a highly interesting and novel research project that was funded and for which he is very proud, no doubt justifiably -- answers Professor Mayer's observation that the size of the funding Professor Nyiri was awarded was no less than any of the "abnormally high amount of project sums" he refers to. But let us agree that bickering about this sort thing is common among rival researchers (COMP) and is clearly not about the high crimes and misdemeanors that we have agreed to call CRIM and about which we are concerned here.)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

HORNOK (full posting):
The Hungarian grant system has been re-built according to West-European models after 1990 and this system now is compatible with that of the EU. (i) Grants from the National Office for Research and Technology (NORT) and the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (HSRF) support technological/industrial development projects and basic research, respectively. Calls for submitting new proposals are widely announced, the projects are evaluated by anonymous reviewers, opinions and suggestions of the reviewers are discussed by a scientific panel (their names are publicly available). The panel ranks the projects and the presidency of NORT or HSRF brings the decision on support or rejection. Reviews and comments are available for the project leaders. If the project proposal is accepted, a contract is signed by the sponsor (here the State), the project leader and his/her host institute. Interim and final reports are evaluated by reviewers and financial experts. Decision on accepting or rejecting the final report is again taken by the presidency. All documents should be retained at least for five years allowing a scientific or monetary auditing by the state or the EU (in case of EU grants). (ii) Besides the so-called philosophers’ projects, 10 other NORT-projects completed during the previous governmental cycle are re-examined by G. Budai, governmental research funding overseer. Such reexaminations are regular events and in no way are focused to philosophers’ projects. (iii) A serious misuse of the project money may carry disciplinary or criminal consequences. Such events are inconvenient for the project leader, who is responsible for the scientific or technological content of the work, but she/he is never accused by misappropriation of the money. A project leader spends not a single coin without the permission of the duly authorized financial officer of the institute and, therefore only this officer and the director of the institute can be indicated for crimes like embezzlement or fraud. (iv) Nobody from the Hungarian scientific community (some 7-8.000 people with scientific degrees) argued against the scientific excellence of professors Heller or Vajda. Furthermore, it is an absolute nonsense to state, that members of the Orban-cabinet would harass these people. The most prestigious prize in Hungary is the Szechenyi Award, donated by the state in recognition of those who made an outstanding contribution to the academic life. Heller and Vajda received this state award in 1998 and 2001, respectively, during the era of the 1st Orban-cabinet (1998-2002). (v) The philosophers who seemingly need some external protection from the Hungarian government received indeed all supports to fulfill their talent from this otherwise poor country. In fact they are appraised by this nation. Most people are [appalled] to see, why such prominent members of the Hungarian scientific life allowed themselves to be dragged into political scandals.

---

Quote/commentary on Hornok posting:

HARNAD:
Professor Hornok’s posting gives what sounds like a very sanguine public statement about the health of Hungary’s current grant funding system (although he neglects to mention how Mr. Budai picks his targets!). But reading Professor Hornok’s account, one would wonder why Professor Palinkas, the President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (in a statement whose URL is helpfully provided by Professor Magyar in one of his postings) wrote:

PALINKAS (Jan 31):
The social science research programme launched by the Government on my initiative in the framework of the Széchenyi Plan in 2001 was substantially retailored by the next government in 2002. It became professionally unfounded, financially illogical and legally vulnerable. In the retailored programme curiosity-driven basic research was deprived of substantial funding, a move weakening Hungary's ability to keep her best scientists at home, while social science projects with only rhetorical relevance to innovation or Hungary's accession to the EU were eligible to much more considerable grants than usual. It is our common interest that such a deformed, incomprehensible and counterproductive system of research funding should be transformed to normalcy. What is needed is an up-to-date, thoroughly transparent research funding system that provides a balanced support of basic research, technical development and innovation. Among other benefits, such a turn would stop brain drain and would stimulate the return, and re-employment in Hungary, of those who had left. The success of the work we have begun could be seriously jeopardised by artificially induced, amateurish, inconsiderate, politically motivated mud-slinging whether it comes from the areas of science, public administration, or from the media. http://mta.hu/news_and_views/press-release-from-the-president-of-mta-126963/

HARNAD:
It is especially reassuring to hear the following from Professor Hornok:

HORNOK (Feb 4):
“Nobody from the Hungarian scientific community (some 7-8.000 people with scientific degrees) argued against the scientific excellence of professors Heller or Vajda. Furthermore, it is an absolute nonsense to state, that members of the Orban-cabinet would harass these people. The most prestigious prize in Hungary is the Szechenyi Award, donated by the state in recognition of those who made an outstanding contribution to the academic life. Heller and Vajda received this state award in 1998 and 2001, respectively, during the era of the 1st Orban-cabinet (1998-2002)”

HARNAD:One becomes, however, a trifle less reassured, when one hears the following words from the same Professor Hornok, spoken (in Hungarian) in a rather different context (the Batthyany Circle of Professors) only a few days earlier (translated here):

HORNOK:
“Dear fellow professors, It is not good for us to remain silent in this case (either), all the less because the enemy leaves no stone unturned. (It is not the "other side" but an enemy, a mortal enemy of the nation!). At this time external members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences are being encouraged to collect signatures by philosophers of Canadian, American, and British citizenships who have been mobilized by the Heller group, and whom—to the great shame of the Academy—we previously elected as honorary members: Daniel C. Dennett, Robert Evans, Stevan Harnad… There is no need to argue with Ágnes Heller’s group. They must simply be ostracized! When we meet these characters we shall look them in the eye without greeting them, when they sit down next to us we shall stand up, for the only way to oppose the hatred in which they wallow to make their living is with silence and total contempt…. The “people,” however, must know how we think about these issues… Regards, László Hornok PS: The spineless (sincerely patriotic) intelligentsia is also responsible for what has happened in this unfortunate country over the past twenty years… The organized and deliberate genocide that has been going on for twenty-one (or sixty-six or ninety-seven?) years has actually been completed.” http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2011/02/index.html

HARNAD:
Hungary needs reform, not revenge. What foreign researchers and funders and expatriate Hungarian researchers need if they are to be attracted to Hungary is a clear, efficient, transparent new system of rules and procedures for research funding, with ongoing auditing to ensure that current and future research funds are indeed being spent according to the new rules and procedures -- not an arbitrary, retroactive, selective show-trial for research funds allegedly misspent long ago, under the old system of rules and procedures, under another government. (The same constructive focus on reform rather than the vindictive focus on revenge might help solve other problems Hungary faces as well...)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum