
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
By BBC Radio 44.6
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

7,595 Listeners

378 Listeners

892 Listeners

1,057 Listeners

220 Listeners

5,462 Listeners

1,799 Listeners

1,878 Listeners

1,749 Listeners

1,041 Listeners

2,116 Listeners

2,087 Listeners

106 Listeners

33 Listeners

402 Listeners

71 Listeners

744 Listeners

161 Listeners

41 Listeners

138 Listeners

76 Listeners

3,193 Listeners

1,032 Listeners

38 Listeners

50 Listeners