Censorship in the Sciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives - Day 1 скачать в хорошем качестве

Censorship in the Sciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives - Day 1

Recording of day 1 from Censorship in the Sciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives conference at the University of Southern California, Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. Chapters: 0:09 Introduction: Lee Jussim 3:47 Welcome Remarks: Anna Krylov 8:51 Introduction: John Tomasi 12:00 Jonathan Rausch - The War on Truth 01:06:15 Mechanisms of Censorship 01:18:54 Musa al-Gharbi 01:37:00 William von Hippel 01:45:45 Nicholas Wolfinger 01:54:53 Q&A Session 02:04:10 Ivan Oransky Your Paper Was retracted? 02:28:31 Q&A Session 02:44:29 Lawrence Krauss - Living in Fear 03:12:35 Scott Turner - Burning it All Down 03:23:39 Elizabeth Weiss Back to Stick Figures 03:34:10 John Landrum - When Editorial and Reviewer Ideologies Collide with Objectivity 03:47:40 Q&A Session 03:57:39 J.P. Messina - Censorship and Self-Imposed Ethical Constraints in Research 04:24:30 Q&A Session 04:28:08 Indirect Censorship and Impacts on Research Freedom 04:33:50 Marcia McNutt - Permitting: Can it be a form of censorship? 04:39:43 Evan Morris 04:50:47 Hugh Desmon - Planned Science 05:00:42 Lee Jussim - Case Study 05:11:56 Q&A Session 05:27:47 April Bleske-Rechek - Censor and Self-Censorship 05:38:22 Nate Honeycutt - Self-Censorship among University Faculty 05:50:28 Wayne Stargardt - Silencing Science at MIT 06:02:08 Q&A Session 06:15:49 Stephen Kunin - Truth, Lies, and Climate Change 06:39:53 Q&A Session Censorship in sciences entails suppression of the investigation of scientific questions, or the publication or dissemination of scientific research, on the grounds that such knowledge would be dangerous, undesirable, or contrary to moral, political, or religious beliefs, attitudes or values adhered to by some segment of the population. This conference brings together experts (both within and outside academia) to address a series of contentious issues about scientific censorship. When, if ever, does rejection of manuscripts for publication or grants for funding constitute censorship? How much of a role, if any, should ethical/moral issues play in deciding which scientific ideas to disseminate? What are the likely costs and benefits of institutionalized censorship, how do we decide, and who decides, when the benefits outweigh the costs? When and how do university administrations and funding agencies, through either action or inaction, mask censorship by finding ostensibly “other” reasons to silence scientists? How does censorship of scientists or scientific ideas manifest? Is compelled speech a form of censorship, and, if so, how does it manifest in science? By bringing together experts with widely varying perspectives on censorship from within the natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy, humanities, and law we aim to host a civil conversation regarding these different perspectives and sharpen the understanding of what is and is not scientific censorship and when it may and may not be justified. The following topics were discussed during the course of the conference: What is censorship? When is it bad and when is it good? Ethical reasons for censorship. Scientific freedom versus social responsibility; tradeoffs between pro-social considerations and scientific progress Science of censorship and philosophical roots of censorship; mechanisms of censorship (e.g., by scientists themselves, funding agencies, review panels, editorial boards, professional societies and organizations) Compelled speech as a form of censorship Censorship of research results versus censorship of discussion on science policy Censorship as a part of cancel culture Censorship of scientists in the public square This conference was held on January 10-12, 2025