Politics Cause Researchers to Self-Censor

As a child, whenever I felt like I was up against a corner for doing something I knew my parents would not approve of, like the time I accidentally smeared Play-Doh all over the couch, I would never answer their questions directly so as to avoid punishment. “Tammy, did you mess up the couches?” As a 6 year old, I would answer, “What couches?” As a 15 year old, I might respond, “You know…you are always complaining about that couch and wanting new ones. Well, now is your chance!” It seems, even as adults, we never get over that sensation of not wanting to be displeasing to anybody. Even scientists and researchers fall prey to the sensation, according to a new survey. In the study, a large group of scientists who were involved and named in a political debate concerning NIH grant funding were found to self-censor themselves and their work due to the controversy.

After receiving criticism in a Congressional debate on the worthiness of certain studies, many scientists actually halted their studies on topics they deemed the government might find too controversial and edited their works for language they felt might be too sensitive for the political grounds. This study led by Joanna Kempner from Rutgers University began after a July 2003 debate in which one Congressional Representative stated that several NIH grants should have their funding pulled because the studies were “less worth of taxpayer funding” than other studies on more “devastating diseases.” Due to this criticism, the NIH began its own thorough reviews on its grants but determined that each of its studies was solid. The studies that were heavily criticized were those that centered around HIV, drug use and sexual behavior; however, despite the fact that the NIH did not get any funding cut, many scientists and researchers shaken by the controversy continued to censor themselves and their work.

Kempner interviewed both the researchers whose funding was on the line during investigations, as well as the investigators of each study, for a total of 82 participants. Of these participants, only 33% of them were worried about any funding they might be provided by the NIH for future studies; however most of the participants did admit to going out of their way to make their studies appear less controversial in hopes that funding would be more easily raised in the future. Over half of the participants admitted to taking out “red flag” words from their grant submission abstracts and titles, including the words needle-exchange, AIDS, homophobia, lesbian and gay. In fact, one researcher in a blatant attempt at self-censorship stated, “I do not study sex workers. I study ‘women at risk.’”

Some researchers even went so far as to halt their studies on those issues they worried might be too politically controversial, including studies on abortion, sexual abuse, sexual orientation and contraceptive (condom) use. With her study, Kempner was able to demonstrate how politics were easily able to determine what researchers and scientists felt compelled to study.