Beyond anecdotal cases, little is known about what, and in what ways, science is constrained. To begin to fill this gap, we performed an interview study to examine how constraints affect what scientists do. In 2002–03, we conducted 10 pilot and 41 in-depth semi-structured interviews with a sample of researchers drawn from prestigious US academic departments of neuroscience, sociology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, industrial psychology, drug and alcohol abuse, and computer science. We chose diverse disciplines to gauge the range, rather than prevalence, of experiences.

We asked subjects to consider their practices and rationales for limiting scientific inquiry or dissemination and to tell us about cases in which research in their own discipline had been constrained. Respondents reported a wide range of sensitive topics, including studies relating to human cloning, embryonic stem cells, weapons, race, intelligence, sexual behaviors, and addiction, as well as concerns about using humans and animals in research.

Nearly half the researchers felt constrained by explicit, formal controls, such as governmental regulations and guidelines codified by universities, professional societies, or journals. Respondents generally agreed that formal controls offered important protections. Less consensus surrounded the necessity, efficiency, or good sense of specific policies. Stem cell research was repeatedly identified as an example of an overly restricted area. Many respondents expressed a preference that scientists—not policy-makers—determine which research is too dangerous.

…Many researchers (42%) described how their own work had been targeted for censure. One researcher was accused by activists of “murderous behavior” because he was incapable of reporting HIV+ subjects who admitted to unsafe sex practices in an anonymous survey. A sociologist published an article that undermined the central claim of a particular group, who allegedly then accused him of funding improprieties

In other cases, the mere threat of social sanction deter red particular types of inquiry. Several researchers said that their choices to study yeast or mice instead of dogs were guided by fears of retribution from animal rights groups. As one respondent commented, “I would like to lunatic-proof my life as much as possible.” Drug and alcohol researchers reported similar fears, stating that they had not pursued studies that might provoke moral outrage.

Finally, there may be unspoken rules shared by the community. As one respondent stated, “every microbiologist knows not to make a more virulent pathogen.”

We failed to detect a coherent ethos regarding production of forbidden knowledge.

See Also: