02947nas a2200589   4500000000100000008004100001260001500042100001800057700001500075700001400090700002000104700001900124700001600143700002200159700001900181700002200200700002400222700001500246700001700261700002200278700001900300700002100319700001900340700001600359700001700375700002100392700002100413700001900434700002100453700001600474700001400490700001700504700002000521700001900541700002000560700001900580700001800599700001900617700002100636700002700657700002200684700002200706700001900728700001900747700001800766700002300784245010200807856005300909300001600962490000800978520137100986       2023                            d  c2023-11-201 aCory J. Clark1 aLee Jussim1 aKomi Frey1 aSean T. Stevens1 aMusa al-Gharbi1 aKarl Aquino1 aJ. Michael Bailey1 aNicole Barbaro1 aRoy F. Baumeister1 aApril Bleske-Rechek1 aDavid Buss1 aStephen Ceci1 aMarco Del Giudice1 aPeter H. Ditto1 aJoseph P. Forgas1 aDavid C. Geary1 aGlenn Geher1 aSarah Haider1 aNathan Honeycutt1 aHrishikesh Joshi1 aAnna I. Krylov1 aElizabeth Loftus1 aGlenn Loury1 aLouise Lu1 aMichael Macy1 aChris C. Martin1 aJohn McWhorter1 aGeoffrey Miller1 aPamela Paresky1 aSteven Pinker1 aWilfred Reilly1 aCatherine Salmon1 aSteve Stewart-Williams1 aPhilip E. Tetlock1 aWendy M. Williams1 aAnne E. Wilson1 aBo M. Winegard1 aGeorge Yancey1 aWilliam von Hippel00aProsocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda  uhttps://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120  ae23016421200 v1203 aScience 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.