
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
In an age of social media ’cancel culture’ might be defined as an orchestrated campaign which seeks to silence or end the careers of people whose thoughts or opinions deviate from a new set of political norms. So if this threat exists for anyone expressing an opinion online in 2021, what’s it like for scientists working in academia and publishing findings which might be deemed controversial?
In this edition of Analysis, Michael Muthukrishna, Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at the London School of Economics, assesses the impact of modern social justice movements on scientific research and development.
Speaking to a range of experts, some who have found themselves in the firing line of current public discourse, and others who question the severity of this phenomenon and its political motives, Michael asks: if fear of personal or professional harm is strengthening conformism or eviscerating robust intellectual debate, can open-mindedness on controversial issues really exist in the scientific community? Or is rigorous public assessment of scientific findings helping to achieve better, more equitable and socially just outcomes?
With contributions from:
Emily M Bender, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Washington
Producer Craig Templeton Smith
4.6
195195 ratings
In an age of social media ’cancel culture’ might be defined as an orchestrated campaign which seeks to silence or end the careers of people whose thoughts or opinions deviate from a new set of political norms. So if this threat exists for anyone expressing an opinion online in 2021, what’s it like for scientists working in academia and publishing findings which might be deemed controversial?
In this edition of Analysis, Michael Muthukrishna, Associate Professor of Economic Psychology at the London School of Economics, assesses the impact of modern social justice movements on scientific research and development.
Speaking to a range of experts, some who have found themselves in the firing line of current public discourse, and others who question the severity of this phenomenon and its political motives, Michael asks: if fear of personal or professional harm is strengthening conformism or eviscerating robust intellectual debate, can open-mindedness on controversial issues really exist in the scientific community? Or is rigorous public assessment of scientific findings helping to achieve better, more equitable and socially just outcomes?
With contributions from:
Emily M Bender, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Washington
Producer Craig Templeton Smith
7,689 Listeners
366 Listeners
897 Listeners
790 Listeners
1,045 Listeners
5,441 Listeners
1,793 Listeners
952 Listeners
1,794 Listeners
1,099 Listeners
1,924 Listeners
415 Listeners
417 Listeners
299 Listeners
67 Listeners
744 Listeners
243 Listeners
69 Listeners
649 Listeners
4,181 Listeners
3,190 Listeners
737 Listeners
75 Listeners