Posted on 11/19/2008 6:26:33 PM PST by Coleus
Scientists for years have intentionally removed potentially explosive words and phrases from research grant applications in an attempt to disguise their work and prevent opposition from critics, according to a Rutgers University study. This type of self-censorship may be having a "chilling" effect on research, the study found, even leading some scientists to abandon their work and pursue other careers.
"One researcher told me, 'You will never see me publish another paper about sexual behavior,'" said Joanna Kempner, an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers, whose study was based on responses from 82 academic researchers nationwide.
The study is published today in the peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science Medicine (medicine.plosjournals.org).
Kempner's work revolves around a 2003 incident, sparked by a series of federal grants to researchers interested in examining sexual behaviors. The grants were publicly criticized by some members of Congress as unworthy of taxpayer funding, saying the money should have gone for research into "devastating diseases."
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Interesting...
Researchers can research whatever they want, but when they want someone else to pay for it that someone else should have a say in where their money goes.
Myself, I’d like to research a nice quiet beach but I can’t get a grant for that either.
You haven't worded it properly :-)
.
The implication is that researchers steer away from topics that would offend the conservatives who have been dealing out the grants. But there is also the unmentionned possibility that researchers steer away from topics or conclusions that might offend their liberal colleagues - particularly if they don’t have tenure. But even tenure doesn’t stop censorship.
Even a famous and tenured Harvard professor, David Putnam, censored himself for a number of years regarding his findings that increased diversity decreased community trust. And Larry Summers as Harvard president sure showed researchers where they dare not go.
The implication is that researchers steer away from topics that would offend the conservatives who have been dealing out the grants. But there is also the unmentionned possibility that researchers steer away from topics or conclusions that might offend their liberal colleagues - particularly if they don’t have tenure. But even tenure doesn’t stop censorship.
Even a famous and tenured Harvard professor, David Putnam, censored himself for a number of years regarding his findings that increased diversity decreased community trust. And Larry Summers as Harvard president sure showed researchers where they dare not go.
“...a series of federal grants to researchers interested in examining sexual behaviors...”
The problem, which I heard about directly from doctors when I worked in a medical library, was that too often the people involved in these studies “exagerrated”.
I suspect that is doctor double-speak for boasting or fibbing, take your choice!
I guess I’m handicapped by saying just what I want the money for.
In other words, the grant system reinforces the orthodoxy of the day and if the researcher want to keep his snout in the trough he”ll say the right things to the right people.
Yep, any penchant for truth is a liability in politics.
The grants were publicly criticized by some members of Congress as unworthy of taxpayer funding, saying the money should have gone for research into "devastating diseases."Impossible! Everyone knows that only the war criminal and Gaia-raping George W. Bush is the only politician standing in the way of research! ;')
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.