The Scourge of Prosocial Censorship

 A recent article discusses the issue of prosocial censorship in the sciences, highlighting how many scholars engage in self-censorship due to social pressures and the fear of disciplinary actions. A survey of US college faculty revealed troubling statistics up to 11% had faced discipline for their work, and a significant percentage reported feeling pressured to avoid controversial topics or likely to self-censor in their publications. The article uses the case of Swedish meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson, who faced immense pressure and criticism for joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation, leading him to resign only weeks later. He stated in his resignation that the pressure he faced was unbearable, drawing parallels to McCarthyism.

Bengtsson’s resignation exemplifies the culture of fear surrounding scientific debate, as many peers rejected his claims of censorship. His previous paper suggesting that climate change would not be as severe as thought faced rejection, with reviewers arguing that it could potentially aid climate skepticism. This reflects the phenomenon of prosocial censorship where individuals are silenced not for producing faulty work but because their views are perceived as threatening to established ideologies.

Article outlines how prosocial censorship manifests in various academic fields. Examples include experts in epidemiology facing backlash for questioning pandemic narratives, psychiatrists criticized for their professional opinions on gender dysphoria, and physicists ostracized for discussing gender representation without linking it to systemic oppression. Moreover, climate scientists who point out self-censorship in their field are similarly attacked.

Trends suggest that censorship is more pronounced in social sciences than in STEM fields, with women more likely to support censorship than men. Generally, left-leaning academics tend to approve of censoring colleagues, potentially leading to a bias in faculty positions favoring leftist perspectives. This atmosphere discourages open discourse and fosters an environment where many feel they must conform to prevalent narratives.

While proponents of prosocial censorship believe they are protecting societal interests or vulnerable groups, the practice carries significant risks. It can lead to the suppression of truth and hinder scientific progress due to fear of reputational damage. The consequences can range from harming individuals’ careers to a complete cover-up of critical information.

Bengtsson's experience underscores that such censorship might not be rare, prompting concern about the integrity of scientific consensus being compromised by social pressures, rather than genuine intellectual inquiry. The article concludes that while prosocial censorship may seem beneficial to some, it ultimately harms the field of science and public trust. 

https://judithcurry.com/2025/01/22/the-scourge-of-prosocial-censorship/