
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
196196 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
5,406 Listeners
383 Listeners
1,854 Listeners
786 Listeners
157 Listeners
7,816 Listeners
311 Listeners
105 Listeners
1,782 Listeners
1,070 Listeners
35 Listeners
904 Listeners
74 Listeners
2,062 Listeners
1,059 Listeners
245 Listeners
80 Listeners
819 Listeners
400 Listeners
755 Listeners
81 Listeners
768 Listeners
3,037 Listeners
77 Listeners