Is political correctness damaging science?

Abstract

Science is hardly unique in relying on peer review to determine merit and success. But for science, the reliance on peers to referee both submissions for publication and applications for grants involves greater dangers than in some other disciplines. It brings the triple risk of conformity, cronyism and plagiarism, which together can smother innovation. At a broader level, there is a tendency for researchers to fall in line with a particular point of view, especially in the more politically charged branches of science such as ecology or climatology. Those who oppose the prevailing orthodoxy risk being branded ‘flat earthers’ and cast into a wilderness where funding and publications are hard to obtain. According to Bruce Beutler, professor of immunology at the Scripps Research Institute (La Jolla, CA, USA), peer pressure in its various forms is a particular problem for science. “It is not unique to research, but in science it goes very much against the grain of what's trying to be accomplished,” he said. Yet scientists themselves must take some of the blame for perpetuating a system that can stifle original thinking, Beutler contends. “Scientists like to present an image to the outside world as being very iconoclastic and sceptical. Yet they have a complete conformity of opinion on certain things, and they do victimize people who differ from them.” By way of example, Beutler cited the atmosphere surrounding the recent US presidential election, in which any scientist who argued in favour of George W. Bush attracted severe ridicule. More worryingly though, such political correctness can distort research, with consequences not just for scientific direction but also for public matters such as health policy. “I think the best example of conformity of science is the influenza vaccine,” said Tom Jefferson, an independent researcher in the UK who specializes in immunology. …