Metadata

• Authors: Cory J. Clark, Lee Jussim, Komi Frey, William von Hippel
• Publication Date: November 20, 2023
• Journal/Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
• URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

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.

Key Findings

• Scientific censorship is frequently driven by scientists with motives including self-protection and prosocial concerns, rather than solely by authoritarian figures.
• There are significant unknowns regarding the consequences of scientific censorship and its impact on transparency and accountability within scientific institutions.
• The benefits of censorship might sometimes outweigh the costs, highlighting a need for empirical examination of the costs and benefits of scientific censorship.