Self Censorship in Research

I fully recognize why social scientists craft their proposals to align with a funder’s mission – this is the reality of grantsmanship. In a soft-money research environment, success depends not only on intellectual rigor and the significance of the problem, but also on the strategic positioning of the argument. Researchers have to anticipate expert reviewers’ critiques but also ensure that their work fits within the priorities of a given funder, whether it be a private foundation or a government agency, like the National Institutes of Health.

But where do we draw the line?  At what point does strategic grantsmanship give way to political interference? Since late January, the executive orders issued by our new president and the subsequent actions by the Department of Health and Human Services are threats on the scientific integrity of federally funded research.

The conversations I’ve had with fellow NIH-funded researchers over the past month have been disheartening.  One researcher shelved a proposal on sexual and gender minority health because “what was the point?” Another abandoned a manuscript out of fear of retaliation from a government funder.  And then there was the discussion about strategically framing proposals around men’s health – one of few topics that might still be considered politically neutral within this climate.

Self-censorship is an understandable survival tactic when your job, funding, or professional standing are on the line – especially as we see real consequences unfold in the news cycle. Speaking out comes with risks, and not everyone has the privilege to jeopardize their livelihood or reputation.

But what happens if self-censorship becomes the norm? What does that mean for the integrity of public health research and the future for health equity? If survival requires staying silent, think of the knowledge that never gets produced, the questions that never get asked, the communities that never get served.

Think of the devastating rise in health inequities.

But resistance is still possible. Some researchers may find subtle ways to resist, playing by the rules while simultaneously subverting the system. Others may choose to speak out directly by openly challenging the threats to scientific independence, even at great personal and professional cost. And yet there will still be those who, due to their vulnerability – whether financial, professional, or personal – will feel unable to take any risks at all.  

But through our collective action, we can support those who are silenced and empower those who dare to resist. A real challenge lies ahead – how will we respond and what role will we each play in shaping the future of public health research?