
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
5,408 Listeners
377 Listeners
1,833 Listeners
159 Listeners
7,715 Listeners
410 Listeners
307 Listeners
105 Listeners
1,824 Listeners
1,072 Listeners
32 Listeners
893 Listeners
1,927 Listeners
1,069 Listeners
61 Listeners
834 Listeners
406 Listeners
755 Listeners
821 Listeners
75 Listeners
106 Listeners
666 Listeners
741 Listeners
2,968 Listeners
26 Listeners