In a recent Perspective piece published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a group of 38 coauthors raised concerns about scientific censorship and its implications. The authors argue that science, fundamentally driven by evidence rather than authority or tradition, often finds itself at odds with societal norms, leading to various forms of censorship. The article highlights an often-overlooked aspect of modern-day scientific censorship: it is frequently perpetuated by scientists themselves.
In their paper, the authors distinguish between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ censorship. Hard censorship involves direct actions to prevent the dissemination of ideas, such as government or institutional restrictions. Soft censorship, on the other hand, includes social punishments or pressures that indirectly hinder the spread of certain scientific ideas.
The authors emphasize that while overt government censorship of science is rare in liberal democracies, more subtle forms of censorship pose a significant threat to scientific openness. This soft censorship can manifest as disguised criticism, rejections under the guise of addressing dangerous or false information, or social pressures leading to self-censorship among scientists.
Far from being external forces, censorship efforts often originate within the scientific community, they argue. Scientists, acting as peer reviewers, editors, or senior researchers, can inadvertently or deliberately suppress ideas that challenge established norms or their own research.
The increasing incidence of scientific censorship, as documented through surveys and reports, is alarming, they write. Actions ranging from disciplinary measures to rejections and retractions motivated by harm concerns are on the rise, indicating a growing trend of censorship in the scientific community.
The authors discuss the psychology behind censorship, suggesting that it can be motivated not only by authoritarian tendencies but also by prosocial concerns.
Self-protection is proposed as a significant factor, where scientists may censor ideas that threaten their reputations or career trajectories. In a highly competitive field, preserving one’s standing can sometimes overshadow the pursuit of unbiased scientific truth.
Benevolence towards peer scholars is another cited motive. Senior scientists or mentors might discourage junior researchers from pursuing certain lines of inquiry to protect them from potential backlash or career harm. This ‘benevolent censorship’ is a double-edged sword – while it aims to protect, it also stifles innovative and potentially groundbreaking research.
The third major motive is prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. Scientists may shy away from or suppress research that they fear could harm vulnerable groups or be misused to propagate harmful ideologies. While this reflects a commendable ethical stance, it also raises questions about the limits of self-censorship in the name of social responsibility.
While these motives might be well-intentioned, the article emphasizes that censorship in any form can be a double-edged sword. It raises ethical dilemmas about the responsibility of scientists to share truth and knowledge versus the potential societal impact of their findings. The tension between advancing scientific understanding and safeguarding societal interests poses a significant challenge to the integrity and progress of science.
The authors of the paper advocate for a more balanced approach to handling controversial or sensitive scientific findings. They suggest that the scientific community needs to develop clearer guidelines and ethical frameworks that allow for the responsible dissemination of research while being mindful of its potential societal impact.
The paper, “Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda“, was authored by Cory J. Clark, Lee Jussim, Komi Frey, Sean T. Stevens, Musa al- Gharbi, Karl Aquino, J. Michael Bailey, Nicole Barbaro, Roy F. Baumeister, April Bleske- Rechek, David Buss, Stephen Cecil, Marco Del Giudice, Peter H. Ditton, Joseph P. Forgaso, David C. Geary, Glenn Geher, Sarah Haider, Nathan Honeycutt, Hrishikesh Joshi, Anna I. Krylov, Elizabeth Loftus, Glenn Loury, Louise Lu, Michael Macy, Chris C. Martin, John McWhorter, Geoffrey Miller, Pamela Paresky, Steven Pinker, Wilfred Reilly, Catherine Salmon, Steve Stewart- Williams, Philip E. Tetlock, Wendy M. Williams, Anne E. Wilson, Bo M. Winegard, George Yancey, and William von Hippel.
