From Science this week, Jon Merz’s group (lead author, Joanna Kempner) publishes a great study about scientists’ sense that they have been targeted for public criticism based on their controversial studies – and how that can affect their choices about what to study. It is one of those studies that makes you wonder why someone didn’t already ask this question empirically – and makes you hope that this sort of study will become part of regular scientific self-appraisal. The findings are interesting:
The paper’s findings are based on 10 pilot interviews and 41 in-depth interviews with researchers from prestigious U.S. academic departments in seven fields – neuroscience, sociology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, industrial psychology, drug and alcohol abuse, and computer science.
Some 42 percent described how their work had been targeted for public censure in one form or another, the paper said.
But the authors were surprised to find that scientists were most affected by so-called “informal constraints,” such as the fear of breaching an unspoken rule against inquiry in a particular area.
[updated]