One of the central tenets of science is that its work be allowed to follow the data, to publish the facts wherever they lead us, to the end of advancing knowledge and understanding. Scientists bridle, correctly, at any efforts aimed at stifling or censoring science. For example, recent efforts to censor science around climate change have been met with widespread opprobrium in the scientific community. Similarly, a few years ago, there was substantial pushback against efforts by federal funding agencies to align with a more conservative agenda that was being promoted by the then-president. In the main, countries such as the U.S. with a robust tradition of research have been able to maintain the progress of science, pushing back occasional politically motivated efforts to impose ideological agendas that censor the work of science.
But what happens when science starts censoring itself? It is no secret that science, the bulk of which happens in universities, is predominantly being carried out by scientists who have a particular ideological bias themselves. Fewer than 10% of U.S. academics, in one study, identified as being on the “right” of the political spectrum. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with scientists having perspectives on the world around them, nor that those may cluster similarly, as do perspectives in all workplaces. But in the context of science, where the purpose is to dispassionately evaluate data, does such homogeneity of perspective affect the work of science?
Read more here.