TY - JOUR
AU - Cory J. Clark
AU - Lee Jussim
AU - Komi Frey
AU - Sean T. Stevens
AU - Musa al-Gharbi
AU - Karl Aquino
AU - J. Michael Bailey
AU - Nicole Barbaro
AU - Roy F. Baumeister
AU - April Bleske-Rechek
AU - David Buss
AU - Stephen Ceci
AU - Marco Del Giudice
AU - Peter H. Ditto
AU - Joseph P. Forgas
AU - David C. Geary
AU - Glenn Geher
AU - Sarah Haider
AU - Nathan Honeycutt
AU - Hrishikesh Joshi
AU - Anna I. Krylov
AU - Elizabeth Loftus
AU - Glenn Loury
AU - Louise Lu
AU - Michael Macy
AU - Chris C. Martin
AU - John McWhorter
AU - Geoffrey Miller
AU - Pamela Paresky
AU - Steven Pinker
AU - Wilfred Reilly
AU - Catherine Salmon
AU - Steve Stewart-Williams
AU - Philip E. Tetlock
AU - Wendy M. Williams
AU - Anne E. Wilson
AU - Bo M. Winegard
AU - George Yancey
AU - William von Hippel
AB - 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.
BT - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DA - 2023-11-20
DO - 10.1073/pnas.2301642120
IS - 48
N2 - 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.
PY - 2023
EP - e2301642120
ST - Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists
T2 - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
TI - Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda
UR - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
VL - 120
Y2 - 2023-12-06
ER -