Open letters from scientists are all the rage. In my bubble, I see them mainly about AI (for or against) and Palestine (related to disagreements). We're invited, sometimes even tempted, to add our signatures. Whilst I understand these letters stem from commitment and social responsibility, I often struggle with the format. They quickly tend towards polarisation and moralising: our opinion is right, all others are wrong. Open letters could invite conversation, but in their chosen form, they mainly entrench positions.
Even with a clear opinion, the popularity of an open letter proves remarkably manipulable. More cautious phrasing yields a longer list of signatories. "Against the uncritical adoption of AI": who could possibly oppose that? That the authors aren't really "In favor of the critical adoption of AI" only becomes apparent if you read the letter carefully. Forceful, unequivocal language ("Free Palestine. Fuck Israel") attracts fewer signatures, but does secure a meeting with the entire Executive Board and Council of Deans. The number of signatories says rather little about the substantive quality of a position, more about social dynamics.
Secretly, I find it quite entertaining to follow who signs such letters. Often it's the same people; only when someone is missing does it stand out. Did they miss the email? Or did they genuinely disagree this time? That a colleague from the Faculty of Science hadn't signed that last letter certainly prompted a slight sigh of relief in the faculty's Executive Board. Sometimes I engage in conversation with fellow signatories. That's more difficult with the initiators themselves: such letters are primarily intended to broadcast, not to start a conversation with me. But with colleagues further down the list, much more nuanced conversations often emerge.
In short, with a bit of flexibility, I can still see the point and even the humour of open letters. But I draw the line when open letters cite academic articles as supposedly objective evidence. Yes, perfectly fine if a climate letter references robust, widely supported IPCC reports: that's what they're for. However, those who selectively shop amongst biased or questionable articles from their own bubble undermine not only their own argument, but also the idea that science is a method. You could hardly create better advertising for the popular trend that "science is just an opinion". Do you, as a scientist, want to put your signature to that?
Perhaps it's time for an open letter about open letters: one that doesn't polarise or cherry-pick, but kindly invites dialogue. I'd happily sign that one!
