Report by top scientists raises concerns about scientific censorship

A group of 39 esteemed scientists from around the world is sounding the alarm over a rise in scientific censorship — but governments and institutions aren’t the only ones responsible: sometimes it’s also scientists themselves.

The researchers, who are affiliated with universities across the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe and Asia — including the UBC Sauder School of Business — have published a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

They argue that in science, evidence should trump all other considerations — but in today’s social climate, many researchers are afraid to publish controversial work, or even study controversial topics such as race, gender, sexuality, religion, law enforcement, health and socioeconomic status. 

The paper points to a 2023 survey of academics in New Zealand, in which 53 per cent reported they weren’t free to state controversial or unpopular opinions, 48 per cent said they weren’t free to raise differing perspectives or argue against the consensus of their colleagues, and 26 per cent said they weren’t free to engage in the research of their choice. Like scholars in the United States, the academics also felt the least comfortable discussing issues related to race, colonialism, sex and gender. 

In another survey, 468 U.S. psychology professors reported that they cannot mention some empirically supported findings without punishment, especially when they portray historically disadvantaged groups in an unfavourable light.

Other scientists claim they are withholding or avoiding controversial findings because they could cause harm to groups they’re studying. But UBC Sauder Professor Karl Aquino says their motives aren’t always entirely prosocial. 

“Some people don’t want their reputations damaged by publishing controversial results because they want to stay a member in good standing with the communities whose approval they care about,’” he says. “There are personal motives for not studying certain questions because scientists are humans like everybody else, and don’t like being unpopular.”

Sometimes scientists also act out of benevolence for their colleagues or advisees, adds Dr. Aquino, and might discourage a peer from publishing controversial research. “The idea would be, ‘I want to protect you from the downsides of your work being out in the media’ or ’Publishing this finding might make it hard for you to get a job.’”

According to the paper, titled Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda, the disciplines most targeted by censorship included history, law, political science, sociology, philosophy, psychology, English, economics, education, biology, medicine and anthropology. 

Defined as “actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality,” scientific censorship can take many forms and come from many sources. Governments can withhold funding or cut jobs, and in extreme cases, even imprison or execute scientists. The paper points to restrictions imposed by the Hungarian government that forced Central European University to relocate to Austria; in the United States, some state governments have banned teaching critical race theory.

Universities, journals and professional societies can also censor scientists by withholding resources from them, censuring members, or refusing to publish controversial findings. Faculty members can ostracize and defame their peers — and even the threat of denunciation can be enough to stop scientists from pursuing unpopular topics, says the paper. 

Meanwhile, people inside and outside institutions pressure decision-makers to avoid controversial subjects, and wealthy donors sometimes threaten to pull funding. Reviewers can also recommend that papers or grant applications be rejected if they are seen as questionable. 

The result, argue the authors, is that societies end up with a more limited — and sometimes incorrect — view of the truth. Censorship can also erode trust in science, and lead scientists to leave the profession altogether.

“If you only have peer-reviewed findings showing that X is true, and all of the other findings don’t make it through, there could be a whole universe of facts that you’re not seeing. And then our understanding of phenomena is very limited,” says Dr. Aquino. “When people think about the harm that findings might cause, they might also consider the harm that results from ignorance.”

Scientific censorship goes back centuries: the paper notes that even Galileo’s persecution was driven by professors who appealed to religious authorities, and a 1948 survey of clinical and abnormal psychologists found that 17 per cent of men and 25 per cent of women wanted Alfred Kinsey’s sexuality research censored.

The researchers point to a number of explanations for why scientific censorship appears to be on the rise now, including expanding definitions of harm, increasing concerns about equity and inclusion, more women in science, growing ideological homogeneity, and more direct interactions between scientists and the public on social media. 

The paper calls for more openness, transparency and accountability in the peer review process; audits of scientific journals and institutions; clear documentation of retractions; and further study into the prevalence and outcomes of censorship.

Dr. Aquino says he can understand scientists’ impulse to protect themselves and the people they’re studying, but this motivation can make it more difficult to discover facts about the world. “I can understand there may be findings that could be misused or would upset people. But I got into this profession because I was hoping to explore things that I believe might bring us closer to the truth,” he says. “And the truth isn’t always comfortable.”