In this week's episode Mike and Elizabeth talk about trends in the censorship of scientific results. Recent research suggests one explanation for censorship behavior is misguided hyper-concern for others reactions. Scientific findings were rated as potentially harmful, and less beneficial, if they were controversial or confusing. We discuss the implications for the marketplace of ideas and scientific inquiry in the current socio political environment. Biased cost-benefit analyses can undermine the advancement of research and influence funding decisions. Hypervigilant concerns may fuel academic cancellation campaigns, paper and presentation rejections, and journal article retractions.
Podcast notes:
Clark, C. J., Graso, M., Redstone, I., & Tetlock, P. E. (2023). Harm Hypervigilance in Public Reactions to Scientific Evidence. Psychological Science, 34(7), 834–848.
Register for our April Liberalism in Practice Panel Discussion: McCarthyism in the Stacks, co-sponsored by the Heterodox Academy’s HxLibraries Community.
An Ounce of Prevention: Overestimated Harm Motivates Science Censorship