Fulltext

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Clark CJ 1 , Jussim L 2 , Frey K 3 , Stevens ST 3 , Al-Gharbi M 4 , Aquino K 5 Show all authors , Bailey JM 6 , Barbaro N 7 , Baumeister RF 8 , Bleske-Rechek A 9 , Buss D 10 , Ceci S 11 , Del Giudice M 12 , Ditto PH 13 , Forgas JP 14 , Geary DC 15 , Geher G 16 , Haider S 17 , Honeycutt N 3 , Joshi H 18 , Krylov AI 19 , Loftus E 13 , Loury G 20 , Lu L 21 , Macy M 22 , Martin CC 23 , McWhorter J 24 , Miller G 25 , Paresky P 26 , Pinker S 27 , Reilly W 28 , Salmon C 29 , Stewart-Williams S 30 , Tetlock PE 1 , Williams WM 11 , Wilson AE 31 , Winegard BM 32 , Yancey G 33 , von Hippel W 34

Affiliations 

  • 1 School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 9104
  • 2 Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854
  • 3 Research Department, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Philadelphia, PA 19106
  • 4 School of Communication and Journalism, Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY 11794
  • 5 Marketing and Behavioral Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2, Canada
  • 6 Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208
  • 7 Communications Department, Heterodox Academy, New York City, NY 10038
  • 8 School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
  • 9 Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702
  • 10 Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78731
  • 11 Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
  • 12 Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste 34128, Italy
  • 13 Department of Psychological Science, University of California Irvine, California, CA 92697
  • 14 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia
  • 15 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 56211
  • 16 Department of Psychology, State University of New York at New Paltz, New Paltz, NY 12561
  • 17 Ex-Muslims of North America, Washington D.C
  • 18 University of Arizona, Department of Philosophy, Tucson, AZ 85721
  • 19 Department of Chemistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089
  • 20 Department of Economics, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
  • 21 Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
  • 22 Department of Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca 14850, New York
  • 23 Psychology Department, Oglethorpe University, Brookhaven, GA 30319
  • 24 Center for American Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027
  • 25 Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
  • 26 Network Contagion Research Institute, Princeton, NJ 08540
  • 27 Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
  • 28 School of Criminal Justice and Political Science, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601
  • 29 Department of Psychology, University of Redlands, Redlands, CA 92373
  • 30 School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Semenyih 43500, Malaysia
  • 31 Psychology Department, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON N2L3C5, Canada
  • 32 Independent
  • 33 Department of Sociology, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798
  • 34 Research with Impact, Brisbane, Queensland 4069, Australia
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2023 Nov 28;120(48):e2301642120.
PMID: 37983511 DOI: 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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications