A New Cancel Culture Censoring Science and Research

SilenceA new cancel culture is sweeping through science and research, censoring mentions of bad words under the new administration. The bad words relate to things like equity, bias, and diversity. Openness? Probably not a good thing to talk about if you don’t want your research funding flagged.

This is a problem. Three researchers in pulmonary and critical care medicine, Jehan Alladina, Corey Hardin, and Alexander Rabin, explain why:

“Censoring research on how to deliver treatments to those most in need isn’t just nonsensical; it puts lives at risk and undermines America’s leadership in medical innovation. Progress cannot occur if scientists are barred from asking certain questions. This is not how science works.”

It is a particular problem for them because they are trying to figure out how to deliver life-saving asthma therapies to the people who need them most. But their research is under attack for too much “wokeness.”

Have we reached a point where concern about people dying is an expression of “wokeness” and thus politically incorrect under the new regime?

A Diverse Collection of Words to Ban

Forgive us please for using the d-word, but apparently there is quite a diverse collection of words that will get your research or your program flagged. The Washington Post offers a sampling:

Advocacy, antiracist, barrier, biases, cultural relevance, disability, diverse backgrounds, diversity, diversified, ethnicity, excluded, exclusion, equity, female, gender, hate speech, historically, implicit bias, inclusion, inclusive, inequities, institutional, intersectional, male dominated, marginalized, minority, multicultural, oppression, polarization, racially, segregation, socioeconomic, systemic, trauma, underrepresented, underserved, victims, women.

Again, this is just a sample. Sadly they did not make it all the way to z. May we suggest xenophobia and zygote to round out the list?

Diversity in Clinical Trials Is Bad?

In line with this fear of the d-word, FDA quietly removed a draft guidance for diversity in clinical trials. No, diversity in clinical trials is not some sort of pernicious agenda. Rather, it is important to ensure that drugs and biologicals will work in the populations that need them. For example, when most of the people with schizophrenia also have obesity, it’s important to include people with obesity in clinical trials. Since obesity is a big problem for Black persons, including them in clinical trials for obesity is important.

After a court order, this information is back online – with a disclaimer about “gender ideology” which readers should discount.

Fear of Questions

Science is all about asking hard questions, not censoring them. Questioning conventional thinking about obesity is what has brought us dramatic advances for dealing with it. Banning hard questions will only serve to slow scientific progress. If we truly want to make America great, we will encourage, not restrain, scientific inquiry.

Click here for the commentary by Alladina, Hardin, and Rabin, here, here, here, and here for further perspective.

Silence, painting by Henry Fuseli / Wikimedia Commons. Read more about this artwork here.

Subscribe by email to follow the accumulating evidence and observations that shape our view of health, obesity, and policy.


 

February 19, 2025

5 Responses to “A New Cancel Culture Censoring Science and Research”

  1. February 19, 2025 at 7:02 am, Joe Gitchell said:

    Thank you, Ted, for this thoughtful and careful update on these critical issues.

    It is frustrating to see that, at least from my perspective, Free Speech and Freedom of Inquiry are more about Power than Principles.

    And I cannot resist noting that those decrying censorship and muzzles were comfortable applying those tools to voices they found objectionable not so long ago. Granted, not the most sympathetic voices (like mine!), but isn’t that the point of Free Speech (if we are to get our John Stuart Mill on?)?

    As just the most recent and discomfiting example, see Brad Rodu’s post from yesterday below about the cancellation (3 times!) of a CME program about nicotine.

    https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2025/02/termination-of-tobacco-harm-reduction.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawIh1ZFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHUeWGEZFlkvcpHsVQjSKaBoEUcIHnDJ_zxXUVQYyHXK3B8L3pjxmvfJxiw_aem_lv4BZm3pQ4SrUCpclLARuQ

    Joe

    Disclosure: My employer, Pinney Associates, Inc., provides consulting to Juul Labs on nicotine vapor for tobacco harm reduction & Philip Morris Intl solely on US regulatory pathways for non-combustible, non-tobacco, nicotine products.

  2. February 19, 2025 at 8:30 am, David Brown said:

    Science is about establishing certainty in terms of explaining how the real World works. For many years, epidemiologists have controlled the diet/disease narrative. “Lands and other biochemists decry what they see as a complete dismissal of the biochemistry of essential fatty acids in making dietary recommendations. But to that critique, Harris says public health policy should be dictated by clinical trial data. “You don’t do it by looking at biochemical pathways,” he says. “You look at randomized controlled trials and population cohort studies where disease endpoints are being measured. That’s what you care about.” https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/110212/an-essential-debate
    So, for upwards of 60 years public health dietary advice has been shaped by American Heart Association dogma which mischaracterizes saturated fats. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36477384/

  3. February 19, 2025 at 7:33 pm, Christine Rosenbloom said:

    This is so distressing. We are in Indonesia where the country motto is “unity in diversity.”

  4. February 20, 2025 at 7:52 am, Michael Jones said:

    Unfortunately, folks on both sides continue talking past each. Perfectly benign words, such as diversity and inclusion and equity, have been high-jacked and politicized such that they no longer have the same meaning. We can no longer just assume the meaning being placed upon it by the use of the words themselves; in some cases it’s quite literally come to mean it’s opposite.