A long legal battle ended Thursday when a jury found that two conservative writers defamed the prominent climate scientist Michael Mann. William Brangham looks at what this verdict means and speaks with another renowned scientist who’s also endured this kind of vitriol, Dr. Peter Hotez.

Amna Nawaz:

A long legal battle ended yesterday, when a jury found that two conservative writers had defamed the prominent climate scientist Michael Mann, awarding him a million dollars in damages.

Amid increasing attacks on science, William Brangham looks at what this verdict means.

William Brangham:

Amna, over his long career, Michael Mann has been an influential contributor to climate research, as well as becoming one of the most effective communicators about climate change's impact. But he has also faced considerable backlash.

In 2012, a conservative policy analyst compared Mann to a child sex abuser, saying that, instead of molesting children, he molested and tortured data. Another called his work fraudulent. Mann sued them both. And, yesterday, after 12 years, he won his case.

We turn now to another prominent scientist who has also endured this kind of vitriol. Dr. Peter Hotez is the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development.

Dr. Hotez, great to see you again.

I know you are in very different fields, but I have to imagine there was a small sense of victory that you must have felt seeing Michael Mann win this defamation case.

Dr. Peter Hotez, Baylor College of Medicine: Well, absolutely.

And, remember, the attacks — now there's somewhat of a convergence of the attacks on climate science with the attacks on biomedicine. And it's — in some cases, it's coming from the identical forces.

I think the message for this week is, remember, the attacks denigrating science and trying to undercut science, both for climate science and biomedicine, is not just about the science. It's now gone the next step to attack the scientists and portray us as public enemies.

And that's where it really starts to get dangerous. So, both Michael and I are stalked regularly. We receive threats online, phone calls to the office, sometimes physical confrontations. So it's gone out to that new level.

And so I think the reason the court victory is important is it sends a signal that, while it's certainly fine to disagree with the science and express skepticism, it crosses a line when you're attacking scientists and putting us in danger.

William Brangham:

Can I just ask you what that is like? I mean, you spend a career, as Michael Mann did, in a very different field, but you spend a career trying to create medicines to help people and to help humanity, which you have clearly done.

And then to be attacked like that and to be — to worry about threats to your life, I'm just wondering what that is like as a professional.

Dr. Peter Hotez:

Well, it can be demoralizing at times.

Remember, I did my M.D. and Ph.D. 40 years ago to make vaccines for global health, to make low-cost, affordable vaccines for the world that the big pharma companies wouldn't make. And we have made vaccines for parasitic infections, low-cost COVID vaccines reaching 100 million people or more.

And I always considered that something important and meaningful and to make the world better. And so the idea now that you would be attacked for it, first of all, it can be demoralizing. But, second, to actually feel like you're in danger at some level, your family's in danger, that's what's really worrisome.

And so I think that's the reason why the court ruling this week is kind of a line in the sand to say, stop. You cannot — it's fine to disagree, but when you attack scientists, you're affecting not only the scientific field, but sending chilling messages to future generations of scientists that maybe this is not something you want to go into.

William Brangham:

Michael Mann said after this verdict that he hopes that this sends a message that falsely attacking a scientist is not protected speech.

Is it your sense that this kind of a victory will serve to blunt that army of people out there who are sniping at you all?

Dr. Peter Hotez:

I don't know.

Is this a one-off thing, or is it — will it be more enduring? I think it's too soon to tell. First of all, remember, resorting to the courts is something that's nobody's first choice. Look, in Michael's case, he had to go through 12 years of this. I mean, who wants to do that?

I mean, if you gave me the choice, do I want to spend my day developing a new human hookworm vaccine that's looking promising to benefit the hundreds of people who suffer from hookworm anemia on the African continent, Asia, and Latin America, or do I want to make cold calls to plaintiff attorneys, it's no contest, right?

I want to be a scientist, and so does Michael. So, this is — this actually says something else, that we don't have the systems in place right now to protect scientists, and too often we're on our own. And having to find plaintiff attorneys and think about suing people is nobody's first choice, nobody's first option.

William Brangham:

And I have to imagine that a lot of these attacks now that come anonymously, driven by bots, now by A.I., has got to make it even harder to defend yourself.

I mean, Michael Mann at least had two people who signed their names to the vitriol they spewed at him.

Dr. Peter Hotez:

Yes, it's coming from all sectors. It's coming from foreign actors. We know that there are bots and trolls coming from Putin's Russia. That's really disturbing.

In some cases, it's coming anonymously. Often cases, it's coming from bloggers and podcasters who are actually making a living targeting science and scientists. And now it's even gone to the next level. We're actually seeing at least two U.S. senators boasting about how they target scientists, same with some members of Congress from the House Freedom Caucus.

And there's a whole system in place at FOX News to amplify this. So, it's — the point is, there's an entire ecosystem of attacks on science, which I kind of understand, but also the scientists. And when they start portraying us as public enemies, that puts us in danger.

William Brangham:

All right, Dr. Peter Hotez, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much for being here.

Dr. Peter Hotez:

Thanks so much.