MIT Free Speech Alliance’s Post

This is going to be a great conference! My talk will be a contrarian take, in a room full of many of my favorite contrarians: "Your Speech Is Freer Than You Think: The Irrational Risk Aversion of (Most) Academic Self-censorship" The crux of my argument will be that demand for truth, rigor, nuance, and "normie" takes is higher than people think and is rising, while self-censorship is reducing supply of such takes and research. Low supply and high demand means the price is high. The long-term incentives in academia are also generally for risk loving and for originality. All of this creates under-appreciated opportunity for people willing to venture into the fray. Most of the pushback you get is annoying at worst, not career existential*, and does not outweigh the above-described benefits. I will describe this theory in detail and then show examples from my career and careers of others. I'll also argue that anyone who has ever uttered something like "[Scientific Institution X] has lit its credibility on fire by [doing act of politically correct pandering Y]" is implicitly agreeing with my thesis. *My title includes the word "most" because I think there are three types of cases where getting into the fray comes with real career risk: when you are on the job market (it's easier to not hire someone, than to fire or not tenure someone, for dubious reasons), when you have a substantial career-risk comorbidity (e.g., being an adjunct, having marginal tenure case, being in a program at risk of elimination), and when you are pushing ideas or lines of inquiry that are deeply taboo or unpopular *in society as a whole* (not just in hyper-progressive corners of academia). But I will argue that most academic self-censorship fits into none of those cases, and that academic self-censorship is probably doing more damage to academia than direct censorship is (though obviously the latter encourages the former, so I'm not absolving the censors!). Free speech and academic freedom are useless if you don't use them! So, go forth and inquire openly! Come to the conference if you want to hear more. https://lnkd.in/gqQqJF5v

I'm thrilled to finally be able to share our new report Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science that was just released today! The report provides a comprehensive view of the origins, spread, and consequences of misinformation about science and offers recommendations toward proactive, structural solutions to address its impacts on individuals, communities, and society. You can read the full report at: https://lnkd.in/epzR_riy

So glad to see this out! Such a comprehensive and wide ranging examination of health misinformation:

Even though Mark Calaguas and I had the amazing opportunity to be on The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine panel to discuss FYLPRO's Tayo work on culturally tailoring COVID-19 at last year's Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science: A Public Workshop, I'm still processing that the Tayo team's collective efforts in trying to reach out community is now included in this new report just released by NASEM! None of us could have imagined this even a year ago. Read the report: https://lnkd.in/gPCW2E9Y Thank you to report editors K Vish Viswanath and Tiffany E. Taylor, Ph.D., and NASEM committee members Nadine Barrett, PhD, MA, MS and Paule Valery Joseph Ph.D., MBA, CRNP, FAAN. Shout out to fellow presenters Roberta Braga and Kavitha Rajagopalan and Rachel Kuo for recommending us to NASEM. The report is part of a larger April 2023 public workshop held at the National Academies that convened academics, researchers and community groups to address misinformation. Check out the "Differential Impacts of Science Misinformation" panel Mark Calaguas and I were on last year with Cabral Bigman-Galimore, Roberta Braga, Jason Young and moderated by Nadine Barrett, PhD, MA, MS: https://lnkd.in/g6BKDgPn

...But then a new "scandal" hit biomedical science.... Thought provoking column in German, but the translator helped well to catch the essence and nuances - Glossy Studies and Bitter Truths ❓ *Why are neurosciences so often affected?; *How big is the iceberg whose tip we see here?; *Are these cases really proof that science’s self-correction actually works quite well?; *How effective is quality control in science, especially peer review?; *Why does it take so long for information from whistleblowers and allegations on specialist forums such as PubPeer to be taken seriously – if that happens at all?; * Should patients be concerned about receiving medicines based on unsound science?; *Why do some scientists “embellish” or even falsify results? And what can be done about it?

New Principal Investigators: you're not alone! Our latest blog explores the unexpected challenges and feelings of isolation faced by new PIs, drawing from a 2018 Science article from Elisabeth Pain (https://lnkd.in/e2B7t2CY). Learn how to navigate the transition from collaborative researcher to lab leader and find out how Lumos Scientific can support you in managing these complexities. https://lnkd.in/exKsikPJ

Amazing article of Ulrich Dirnagl about the increasing number of fraudulent papers that make it all the way to "top journals" and influence investments and careers. We must change the system, and I think a good first step is, as authors, reporting all results and, as reviewers, accepting some inconsistencies that hampers nice narrative.

Dear Professor Holden Thorp Pardon me, but the moment I heard you say "decouple", it's sounded like jumping of a sinking ship except that the ship is the planet Earth / humanity / deep history of science, so to speak ;) On second listening, I heard your interest in doing differently: here's one: Thus Spoke Pushpa (https://lnkd.in/gi8C3U-5), which can be summed up as, in one phrase: Being Real. What is it about reality that I am supposed to become, given that any real thing is a god on its own ;) i.e., infinite (https://lnkd.in/gh_qer4V, pp. 9-10, notwithstanding da way too successful scientific outreach of Newtonian abstraction: 'body' as existing in-of-itself, https://lnkd.in/g7qMJ4cH)? Fortunately, that attribute of reality that's speaks to the immediate concern of science is surprisingly effortless to emulate. First, note that reality, in spite all that it is, doesn't have agency! Not even that of a mice fakin dead when a eagle swoops down to make of meal of it (I'm no expert on dis faking biz, so substitute as required ;) The point, at the risk of unnecessarily repeating, is that reality can not be anything other than what it is. As much as you hate Trump, it is what it is: a chair can't pretend to be a beer bottle, nor can a table. A table is a table is a table! That's all science has to do. To see that that's not being done, take any peer-reviewed paper from Science Magazine or Nature Magazine and compare the truth value(s; however you may assign) of various sections of the paper: Introduction vs. Methods vs. Results vs. Discussion vs. Conclusion (I think you got my drift; just in case it's not obvious: our findings can help develop drugs to blah blah; note that the problem is not with "can", but with no specification of canning that can, in the sense of belling the cat ;) Now I'll get more specific, but all in the spirit of 'dissent inhales life' not only into science but also into institutions that house those who consciously participate in the practice of science. Unlike Science Magazine , Nature Magazine , PNAS , and the journal #Neuron Cell Press have the unique distinction of yanking my online comments after having been approved and on their websites for weeks to months. I feel sorry for the editors who approved and later apologized; I'm sorry to trouble you! For those curious, what state secrets I might have revealed: https://lnkd.in/g-Qb9zH2 https://lnkd.in/gBdbg-7v Nature Magazine is hell-bent on not publishing a correction even after PubMed wrote to Springer Nature (unlike Science Magazine , PNAS & #Neuron , Nature Magazine thinks THE QUEEEN is still alive ;) https://lnkd.in/gqFc7GdR AAAS stay away from Nature Portfolio 2 regain #TRUST

The newest "Wissenschaftsnarr" column from the "Laborjournal" by Ulrich Dirnagl: How research scandals shake trust in science and reveal systemic deficits. https://lnkd.in/gbCkxsY4 (In German)

"So, to those asking if we should be encouraged to ask questions - absolutely, yes. To those wondering if skepticism is a good thing - unequivocally, it is. But we must be clear about what true scientific skepticism looks like. It's not about cherry-picking data to support pre-existing beliefs. It's not about giving equal weight to fringe theories and well-established scientific consensus. And it's certainly not about using the language of science to peddle ideas that have been thoroughly debunked by rigorous research. ... Moving forward, our challenge will be to effectively communicate scientific truths and promote evidence-based policies without becoming entangled in partisan rhetoric. This may require a delicate balance of assertively defending scientific principles while also addressing the underlying concerns and frustrations that make people susceptible to misinformation in the first place."