PNAS published a paper claiming scientists are “censoring” research for moral reasons. Yet its authors include those who believe women’s brains evolved to be incapable of science, half of Africa is intellectually impaired & promote articles claiming eugenics should be used as “foreign aid” in Africa
![PNAS PERSPECTIVE Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda Cory]. Clark © 1 , LeeJussim, Komi Frey, Sean T. Stevens, Musa al-Gharbi ®, Karl Aquino ®, J. Michael Bailey. , Nicole Barbaro, Roy F. Baumeister , April Bleske-Rechek ®, David Buss © , Stephen Ceci ® , Marco Del Giudice, Peter H. Ditto, Joseph P. Forgas, David C. Geary ®, Glenn Geher, Sarah Haider, Nathan Honeycutt ®, Hrishikesh Joshi, Anna I. Krylov, Elizabeth Loftus ® Glenn Loury, Louise Lu, Michael Macy. ®, Chris C. Martin, John McWhorter, Geoffrey Miller ©, Pamela Paresky. , Steven Pinker , Wilfred Reilly, Catherine Salmon D, Steve Stewart-Williams ® Philip E. Tetlock, Wendy M. Williams , Anne E. Wilson , Bo M. Winegard, George Yancey , and William von Hippel
Edited by Timothy Wilson Universit of Virginia](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:46e3r3fp37dl3alwheajaez7/bafkreiccbtqqgl6ydrppqtizcp7rotuwoaliqoqdcyhka3rcznippgz2lu@jpeg)
What's Beth Loftus doing on this list? I know 90% of these names, and most make perfect sense... but... Loftus? Has she taken a turn in recent years?
Lol. You just can't see how important the data is because of your infurior female brain. With my superior man brain I can easily.... I lost my train of thought. I know it was about tacos, but I can't remember what..
All the usual suspects.
Wasn't aware of this context, thanks for sharing. But, IIRC one of the landmark pubs in my field took years to publish because peer reviewers were policing the status quo. Scientists are as flawed as other humans, invested in their pet ideology (I'm not immune from this). That was my main takeaway.
Ah yes, the "voluntary and moral" form of eugenics. That'll work out just fine.
“We are against censorship because we have a right to spew our despicable beliefs to anyone and everyone, anytime, anywhere. Imagine the loss to humanity if we couldn’t express our sexism and racism.
WTF... ~_~
None of these are scientifically tenable ideas. It is disappointing (to say the least) to see PNAS & the other authors on this list lending legitimacy to these ideas