It has long been suspected that political correctness has had an impact on science, especially in highly politicized fields like climatology. That suspicion has now started to generate research. Here is the first PNAS foray into this new field. Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists PNAS https://www.pnas.org › doi › pnas.2301642120 by CJ Clark · 2023 — Prosocial motives for censorship may explain four observations: 1) widespread public availability of scholarship coupled with expanding ... Abstract 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). 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. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. 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. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions. The fundamental principle of science is that evidence—not authority, tradition, rhetorical eloquence, or social prestige—should triumph. This commitment makes science a radical force in society: Challenging and disrupting sacred myths, cherished beliefs, and socially desirable narratives. Consequently, science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship (1). In liberal democracies, government censorship of science is rare (although see ref. 2). The greatest threats to scientific openness are often more diffuse and disguised as legitimate scientific criticism (e.g., rejection of dangerous and false information) (3). Because scientific censorship is difficult to detect and measure, it is rarely empirically studied. Here, we discuss historical and modern evidence regarding the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship. Our analysis suggests that censorship is often impelled by prosocial concerns (4–6) and by scientists (7). We also identify unknowns regarding scientific censorship and highlight how scientific institutions can improve transparency to facilitate the exploration of these unknowns. . . . .
Here's an interesting discussion that touches on some related issues: I find it especially significant that these two, who are by no means flakes or marginal crackpots, take it as an established fact that the officially mandated scare narratives on both COVID-19 and climate change are largely bull$#!+. Some extremely greedy people have made extremely large amounts of money from both of them, and they don't care that millions have died or could die as a result.
~ The only " science" regarding climate change catastrophe is political science — largely originating from the U.N.
Liberals use political correctness as de facto censorship to silence any and all debate that does not fit their liberal narrative regardless of its truthfulness.
