@article{2631,
  author = {Cory J. Clark and Lee Jussim and Komi Frey and Sean T. Stevens and Musa al-Gharbi and Karl Aquino and J. Michael Bailey and Nicole Barbaro and Roy F. Baumeister and April Bleske-Rechek and David Buss and Stephen Ceci and Marco Del Giudice and Peter H. Ditto and Joseph P. Forgas and David C. Geary and Glenn Geher and Sarah Haider and Nathan Honeycutt and Hrishikesh Joshi and Anna I. Krylov and Elizabeth Loftus and Glenn Loury and Louise Lu and Michael Macy and Chris C. Martin and John McWhorter and Geoffrey Miller and Pamela Paresky and Steven Pinker and Wilfred Reilly and Catherine Salmon and Steve Stewart-Williams and Philip E. Tetlock and Wendy M. Williams and Anne E. Wilson and Bo M. Winegard and George Yancey and William von Hippel},
  title = {Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda},
  abstract = {Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.},
  year = {2023},
  journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences},
  volume = {120},
  pages = {e2301642120},
  month = {2023-11-20},
  url = {https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120},
  doi = {10.1073/pnas.2301642120},
}