An article published last November from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) titled “Prosocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda” exposes a profound issue within the scientific community—censorship driven by ideological motives under the guise of prosocial concerns. This phenomenon has far-reaching implications, suggesting that academia and scientific institutions may be increasingly influenced by leftist or Marxist ideologies, leading to a skewed representation of scientific knowledge that aligns with regime-approved narratives.
Overview of Scientific Censorship
Scientific censorship, as defined by the authors, involves actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality. Historically, censorship has been associated with authoritarian regimes and dogmatic institutions. However, this paper posits that contemporary censorship is often propagated by scientists themselves, motivated by self-protection, benevolence towards peers, and concerns for societal well-being.
“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)”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
The article further challenges popular narratives, stating,
“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”.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
The Role of Ideological Bias
One of the critical points raised in the article is the role of ideological bias in scientific censorship. The authors highlight that most modern academics lean politically left, which predisposes them to censor right-leaning perspectives. This ideological homogeneity creates an environment where certain viewpoints, particularly those challenging prevailing leftist ideologies, are systematically suppressed.
The paper notes,
“Most modern academics are politically left-leaning, and so certain right-leaning perspectives are likely targets for censorship”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
This bias not only stifles scientific debate but also distorts the scientific record, leading to a false consensus on various issues.
Historical Context and Modern Parallels
The paper draws parallels between historical instances of censorship and modern practices. It references the persecution of Galileo by Aristotelian professors, who used the Church’s authority to punish him for his heliocentric views. Similarly, today’s academics often leverage institutional power to suppress dissenting voices, whether through formal rejections or more subtle forms of social punishment.
“Although the Church ultimately sentenced Galileo, his persecution was driven primarily by Aristotelian professors who appealed to the Church’s authority to punish him. In the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, state censors (often academics themselves) revised and rejected manuscripts in a system similar to peer review”.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
The authors provide a taxonomy of censorship, distinguishing between “hard” censorship (exercised by authorities like governments and universities) and “soft” censorship (social punishments like ostracism and reputational damage). Both forms are prevalent in modern academia, often justified under the pretext of protecting vulnerable groups or preventing harm.
“Hard censorship occurs when people exercise power to prevent idea dissemination. Governments and religious institutions have long censored science. However, journals, professional organizations, universities, and publishers—many governed by academics—also censor research, either by preventing dissemination or retracting postpublication. Soft censorship employs social punishments or threats of them (e.g., ostracism, public shaming, double standards in hirings, firings, publishing, retractions, and funding) to prevent dissemination of research”.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
The Consequences of Censorship
The article warns of the significant consequences of scientific censorship. When certain ideas are systematically suppressed, the published literature becomes biased, leading to a distorted understanding of reality. This, in turn, affects policy-making and societal norms, as decisions are based on incomplete or skewed information.
“Systematic censorship, and thus systematic misunderstandings, could emerge if a majority of scientists share particular preferences or prejudices that influence their scientific evaluations”.
The authors illustrate this with a hypothetical scenario:
“The potential epistemic consequence of scientific censorship. Green stars are evidence that X is true. Red stars are evidence that X is not true. Assume that each piece of evidence is equally weighty. Censorship that obstructs evidence against X will produce a peer-reviewed literature that concludes that X is true when most likely it is not”.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
Recommendations for Transparency and Accountability
To address these issues, the authors call for greater transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making. They suggest empirical studies to examine the costs and benefits of censorship and advocate for clear, transparent criteria for evaluating research. This would help mitigate the influence of individual biases and ensure that scientific discourse remains open and robust.
“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”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
Ideological Capture and Its Implications
The ideological capture of academia and scientific institutions is not a new phenomenon, but its implications are becoming increasingly apparent. When scientific discourse is dominated by a particular ideology, it undermines the fundamental principles of science—objectivity, critical inquiry, and evidence-based reasoning.
The alignment of academic institutions with leftist or Marxist ideologies exacerbates this problem. These ideologies often prioritize social and political goals over objective truth, leading to the suppression of research that contradicts their narratives. As the article notes,
“Science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship”.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
This ideological capture is evident in various fields, in particular climate science, where dissenting views on issues like climate change and policy responses are almost always marginalized. The result is a monolithic perspective that discourages genuine scientific debate and innovation.
Conclusion
The PNAS article sheds light on a critical issue within the scientific community—censorship driven by prosocial motives and ideological bias. This phenomenon threatens the integrity of scientific research and undermines public trust in scientific institutions. To preserve the credibility and objectivity of science, it is essential to recognize and address the ideological influences that drive censorship and to promote a more open and balanced scientific discourse.
By fostering transparency, accountability, and ideological diversity, we can ensure that science remains a true reflection of reality, rather than a tool for advancing specific political agendas. Only then can we uphold the fundamental principle that evidence, not ideology, should guide our understanding of the world.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I believe it all comes back to government subsidy of schools and research. You get more of what you subsidize, and the people you attract with those subsidies are those who would not otherwise be interested — the marginal researchers and especially students.
The schools of course smell all that sweet sweet subsidy, and provide as much support as they can for their new marginal students, meaning dumbed-down classes and entire fields, which need dumbed-down teachers and researchers.
And of course the scramble for those dumbed-down positions by people who don’t really care but just want that sweet sweet subsidy means cutting corners and rushing to publicize one’s marginal achievements as much as possible.
There’s that, but there are also Trojan horses from enemies as well as just plain insanity.
For example, battalion levels of military aged men are crossing our former Southern border from places like China, Chechnya and others each and every month. Then, some are being made to believe in the absurd that cutting off your pecker can make you a woman.
What do those have to do with unscientific articles?
And repeating that “battalion levels of military aged men” hysteria is just …. useless. The classic militia is all males 16-45 or some similar range. Even small towns have “battalion levels of military aged men”.
If you don’t have the nerve to call them an actual invading army, then don’t insinuate it with such loaded language. Say what you mean, don’t just hint at it. If saying it out loud is too embarrassing, whispering it means you don’t believe it yourself.
People have to recover from ideological capture on their own. Shouting is mostly ineffective. In any case, I’m expressing my opinion.
saw a news report a few days ago- somebody from Chechnya murdered somebody- forgot where but it was in America
can’t quite imagine how a woman can become a man- or pretend to be- probably best if I don’t know 🙂
Eisenhower was all over this in his farewell speech. Funny, how generations of college kids have come home for Thanksgiving and bored their parents about the dangers of the ‘military industrial complex’, but never mentioned a word about what was really going on before their eyes on campus.
Also worth noting that economics, while not a ‘hard’ science like physics, has always been subject to academic suppression, hence most economics majors are fully indoctrinated with the idea that government intervention in the economy is always beneficial.
“what was really going on before their eyes on campus”
sex, drugs and rock and roll
That too.
Have you ever taken a class in Economics? Economists tend to be the first to question the need for government intervention. Please go to your nearest academic library and read a few articles in The Journal of Pollical Economy or the Journal Of Law & Economy. You will quickly see how wrong you are,
‘Have you ever taken a class in Economics?’
Yes, I have. Aside from ‘micro’, it was all Neo-Keynesian / IS-LM nonsense that basically rams home the idea that the private sector is helpless without government intervention. Think Paul Krugman, or better yet, read one of the heavily mathed-up economics journals to see how ‘physics envy’ leads to inane conclusions, e.g., like how increasing the minimum wage increases employment.
‘Economists tend to be the first to question the need for government intervention.’
Some, mainly those who have been exposed to ‘Austrian’ economics, or perhaps even some market-oriented Monetarists, but even the latter have no problem with government directing the money supply. To the extent that most academic economists ‘question the need for government intervention’ is only a prelude to answering in the affirmative.
I started at UC Berkeley just as the “Free Speech Movement” was starting. I was, and am, quite against censorship. I readily accepted the cover story of the movement and signed a few petitions. It took me perhaps a couple of months of on campus observations, and attending various meetings, to realize that the cover story was just cover for all the absurdity of marxist/socialist demands that didn’t stand up to reasonable questions. The people behind the movement, and almost all the people attending their rallies, clearly did not favor any speech that went against their mission. No one attempting to express anything contrary was allowed to speak.
Before my realizations, I talked about positive points of the cover story to people, especially when home on break. Once I realized what was actually happening on campus I wanted nothing more to do with it. Almost all adults I had talked to in the beginning were very opposed to antics of those free speechers, whether or not they had any idea of the reality behind them, and few younger people were interested, so I saw no point in more talk.
________________________________________________________________
Tell us something that we don’t know.
the public at large doesn’t know it but of course they won’t find out by reading “An article published last November from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)”
such an article should be in Readers Digest
“Kevin and I will keep it out of the literature, even if we have to reinvent what peer review is”.
Climategate emails telling it like it is.
and the world has forgotten that
Forgotten? Some of our newer trolls are actually claiming it never happened.
When I was in college more years ago than I care to remember, it seemed to me in my senior year that the people who planned to go on to graduate school were the kids who were bright but who didn’t want to leave college and enter the real world. Now I know there are many hard working graduate students, and I know that my impressions may not have been indicative of all graduate students. But while most of us graduates were sick of school already after 16 years and wanted to get on with our lives in real jobs and careers, a subset of us didn’t want to leave the relatively soft life of being in college. Just an observation.
Graduate school in Chemistry was not a soft life.
If one is fascinated with a science- and has above average intelligence, though grad school in a hard science may not be a soft life, it’s a whole lot nicer than having a typical shitty job in an office or a factory or almost anything else.
Nice doesn’t mean easy. I grew up in a working class neighborhood. People worked to support their families. They took vacations. The job may be “shitty” but the life need not be.
Or, as in my case, the job market in my field was very, very poor. It was somewhat better 2 years later, and I went into the private sector. I did continue my education at night school, which helped me in my job.
Also from the paper:
Hard to imagine when this would be likely, but apparently even the researchers assume that there are times that censorship is OK.
I say nonsense, publish the results and let the chips fall where they may. The remedy for bad science is more science, just as it is for speech.
The problem is that those benefiting from censorship are rarely, if ever, the ones paying the price for it.
It is a bit much to call the motivations of scientists “PROSOCIAL”.
More like “PROSOCIALIST.”
And it’s a bit much to call real scientists “right wing”.
The last time I looked, the Truth didn’t belong to one political party or another.
It just so happens that in climate science, skeptics happen to be mostly on the right politically. But that doesn’t show a correlaton with a political party, it shows a correlation with the truth. The truth being: There is no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth, and there is no evidence the CO2 needs to be regulated or curtailed.
Most of the Marxist advocacy in universities is Arts and Humanities, Psychology and Sociology, and more recently in Economics and Law.
These are all areas that make no identifiable productive contribution to society. There are no consequences for error.
In fact, there is no knowable error in any of them, which is why politics is free to run amuck there. No negative feedback except for heresy.
The only cure I see for the problem is to defund universities. All but the hard physical sciences and engineering — disciplines where error is visible, knowable, quantifiable, and has consequences.
nailed it!
Tempting, but the residual problem is who is going to define ‘error’ in the ‘hard physical sciences and engineering’? If it’s the same administrators and trustees who are in charge of the asylums today, it’s not going to solve the main problem, which is the Left’s relentless march through the institutions.
I think the solution lies in decentralization, meaning getting the Feds out of education and accreditation. Presumably, degrees offered by truly liberal state and private institutions would then be more highly desired than those offered by Socialist State or Pomo University.
Not to say it won’t be difficult.
The universe judges right or wrong in the physical sciences and engineering.
Administrators, should they arrogate decision power, can only judge welcome or unwelcome.
Your market solution would be welcome. Previously, I was against school vouchers because public money would go to sectarian schools. But now that all schools are sectarian, that objection is vacant.
I expect most parents would choose the scholastically superior schools that also enforced a civil discipline. Some such schools would also be religious. None would be progressive.
Yes, there are those subjects in which there are probably correct snswers, and then there are all the rest, in which feelings and sensitivities matter.
It’s not just scientists and educators that are bullied and threatened with toeing the Marxist and AGW line. Even private businesses that have major stock holders and business partners controlling their ideology are affected.
The article does a reasonable job of pointing out that censorship in academia is common and problematic – especially where it is driven by researchers themselves as opposed to “authorities”. What surprised me is that the authors managed to avoid any mention of “climate science” in their examination of the issue. Is that an example of “self censorship”? Perhaps the authors recognized that including any of the many examples of academic censorship of climate change skeptics would result in rejection (censoring) of their paper. Can you say “irony”?
Academia has grown hugely. Every major town now has a higher education institution. It’s big business.
Why did it grow?
WW2 showed that the strength of a nation is not just in its population numbers and economic strength but also in its reserves of ingenuity. The Manhattan Project was just the most visible example. All the social engineering required to gear up to a war footing relied on new ideas. Academia was the mine where they dug up the ideas.
After WW2 the Cold War spurred on further investment.
After the Berlin Wall fell… there was a peace dividend. Academia could be cut. Unless academia could find another existential threat to fight.
AGW and environmentalism fit the bill. The social sciences have no shortage of problems to confront.
Even the army was defunded after the Cold War. Professors have less good will than veterans.
Academia needs to find an enemy to confront or it will be defunded.
‘After the Berlin Wall fell… there was a peace dividend.’
Well, at least there should have been, but our interventionist Deep State ensured that there would be neither peace nor a dividend.
The ingenuity wasn’t just in academia.
Look at the many attachments soldiers came up with for tanks.
There was a version with forks welded onto the front that was used to cut through hedgerows.
Another spun a pole with weights attached to chains welded to it, it was used to clear minefields.
Soldiers are well known for not waiting for the rear echelon types to come up with a solution to their problems.
Harvard University provides one of the best or, should I say the worst example of the corrosive impact of political correctness. Larry Summers, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary, who is white and is considered one of the top economists in the world was forced out as the President of the University for suggesting that data showed that while females on average performed just as well or better in STEM fields, males performed much better at the top. On the other hand, Harvard resisted replacing Claudine Gray, an African-American female, as president even after getting proof that she was a serial plagiarist.
I only skimmed this, but would add a lot about the so called ‘press’ exploiting egos. Everybody is advertising also might be discussed as I was warned about this decades ago about the entry of the legal profession. Another example, wonder if they include oyster farmers centuries old success as “…indigenous communities about cultural practices that support resiliency…” Farmers don’t know about climate? They have the ‘cart before the horse.’
International Conference on Shellfish Restoration 2024
(ICSR2024; https://www.icsr2024.com/) “….We encourage submissions that highlight the different objectives and outcomes of your projects, whether it’s restoring shellfish populations and their ecosystem services, reinvigorating fisheries, supporting responsible shellfish aquaculture practices, or learning from indigenous communities about cultural practices that support resiliency. Presentations related to shellfish restoration in a changing climate are also of great interest…..”
Conservative politicians are routinely called Right Wing in science journals
better than a Wrong wing?
Which tells us that the writer is Left Wing.
Obviously there are a great many people who disagree with that idea.
The real implications are that ‘we’ will be left in the scientific dust while our competitors will forge ahead.
From the 1970s to the 2000 era, I was fortunate to have been chosen to work with 3 separate scientific teams. The first was in a military academy, where much stress was placed on self-discipline, the act of continuing to work towards a beneficial goal that was getting harder.
The second was with Australia’s CSIRO in a unit introducing new legumes and grasses for animal pastures. My boss earned the CSIRO Medal and the project has been worth billions to the nation. My exposure to serious, senior scientists was beneficial in stressing the high value of the use of proper, empirical science and the rejection of beliefs.
Thirdly, I became chief geochemist for a mineral exploration/mining group where a few of us grew a team which was world-leading in terms of the number of new mines found (about 15 in total, 7 big ones in my 20 years) and in their value to national income. (In current Aust $ terms, approaching $100 billion in product sales). My contention is that you cannot perform that way unless your science is honest, rigid, free from belief and showing growth of scientific understanding.
The keys, all the way through, focus on hard, replicable, honest science. We had that in our teams and it was infectious. We also learned that some people played golf better, through natural ability. Same with science. Not all are good at it, ever. Sadly, when scientists are employed for political or alarmist belief reasons, or race or wealth or whatever, failure will result.
These days, instead of learning from scientific success, society seeks to denigrate. Few people have ever said thanks to me. Many have said filthy miner or worse. Modern people look increasingly alien on a path to self destruction by failing to understand what science really is.
Geoff S
Thank you for bringing this paper back to the forefront here it belongs.