What motivated us to put pen to paper? Simple: All of us are concerned about what appears to be an increasing tendency within science to stifle certain unpopular claims – not because of low scientific quality but for other, non-scientific reasons. The claims in question tend to revolve around hot-button political issues such as sex, gender, and colonialism, and the attempts to censor these claims tend to come from a leftist or progressive perspective. Here are some of the examples of scientific self-censorship that we document and discuss in the paper:
- Increasing numbers of scientists report being sanctioned for conducting politically contentious research.
- Retractions of papers have become more and more common over the last decade, and at least some of these appear to be driven primarily by concerns other than epistemological merit. One group of scholars even retracted their own paper, not because it was scientifically flawed, but because it was being cited by conservatives in ways they didn’t approve of.
- Several lines of research suggest that studies reaching politically unpalatable conclusions may have a harder time negotiating the peer-review process than they would if the conclusions were flipped. As we note in our paper, “When scholars misattribute their rejection of disfavored conclusions to quality concerns that they do not consistently apply, bias and censorship are masquerading as scientific rejection.”
- Recent surveys suggest that many academics support censuring or censoring controversial research, and that support is stronger among younger scholars.
- Unsurprisingly, recent polls also suggest that many academics now self-censor on even mildly controversial topics.
- A large number of academics express a willingness to discriminate against conservatives when it comes to hiring, publications, grants, and promotions. Unsurprisingly, conservative scholars are particularly likely to self-censor.
- A growing number of journals have explicitly committed to judging scientific papers not just on the quality of the research but also on their (supposed) social or political impact. “In effect,” we note, “editors are granting themselves vast leeway to censor high-quality research that offends their own moral sensibilities.”