Scientific Research and Censorship
Question: Should some scientific research be censored?
In a recent book Science, Truth and Democracy the American philosopher Philip Kitcher argues that under some circumstances it would be better to refrain from carrying out certain types of scientific research. Here is an outline of his argument. Imagine a society containing an underprivileged group – “Underprivileged”. They may be an ethnic group, social class or some other group. Underprivileged have lives which are generally worse than the rest of society. They have a lower life expectancy, are economically worse off, unhealthier, have higher unemployment and so on. This state of affairs is partly caused by the fact that, in the past, there was a general belief in the community that Underprivileged are by nature intellectually inferior. Although this belief used to be widespread it has now been generally discarded and tends not to be mentioned in public.
Suppose now that some scientific research is being conducted which looks like supporting the view that Underprivileged are in fact intellectually inferior and hence less suited for education, training and a whole range of careers. According to expert opinion this research is not very good and is unconvincing. However, the research is not seen that way in the wider community and it has the effect of leading people to believe once again in the inferiority of Underprivileged. As a result their lives will be even worse than they already are. In this situation it seems clear that the scientific research in question poses a threat to the welfare of Underprivileged.
Thus if, in general, it is wrong to engage in behaviour which causes harm and since this research causes harm then it is wrong to carry out this research. How exactly could the research harm the Underprivileged? For example, it might be thought that it is futile for governments to spend money on special education and training programs. In Australia, for instance, the Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program (IESIP) provides funding for some 200 educational organizations and systems that service over 90 per cent of Indigenous students in preschools, schools and vocational education and training. In the hypothetical Underprivileged situation such government programs may well be regarded as a waste of money.
Although the Underprivileged situation is hypothetical it is not far-fetched. To consider one type of case, during the 20th century there have been a number of attempts at showing that black Americans are intellectually inferior to white Americans. For example, the German psychologist Hans Eysenck published the book Race, Intelligence and Education and the American psychologist Arthur Jensen wrote the article How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Both of these argued the case that, based on IQ testing, black Americans are less intelligent than white Americans.
Return now to the original question. Should some scientific research be stopped? There are other related questions. Should some scientific research be allowed but not funded? What criteria would we use in deciding whether or not certain research should be allowed?
Isn't it dangerous to ban free inquiry? As we know, in communist states such as the Soviet Union free speech and expression was restricted and in China it still is. If we ban even some scientific research, aren't we heading along the same path? The search for knowledge may contain risks but isn't it better to take these risks? Had scientific research been subject to censorship in the past would the same progress have been made? Isn't it better to adopt a general policy of free inquiry? After all, major scientific theories tend to have consequences for our beliefs and values — consider the Copernican theory which overturned almost 2000 years of believing that the earth was the centre of the universe, or Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection which undermined the biblical account of creation.
Should Darwin and Copernicus have been prevented from researching due to the effect their research might have on people's belief systems? But perhaps there is a way of marking a boundary between this sort of research and the research in question concerning the inferiority of one race over another. If we believe that research into racial inferiority is wrong, does that mean it should be banned? It is one thing to argue that scientists should refrain from certain sorts of research. However, it is quite a different matter to say that scientists should be prevented from carrying out research.
One question that arises in relation to scientific research is, what is the point of the research? Is there a point to an inquiry into the inferiority of one race over another? What exactly is the point? As suggested above, free inquiry is an important value and there are dangers in trying to place limits on it. But why encourage scientific investigation into racial inferiority (or superiority) if there is nothing to be gained from the results? Furthermore, why encourage such investigation if it is likely to cause deep offence or even harm? One of the problems in this sort of investigation is the unclarity in key notions such as intelligence and intellectual inferiority and superiority. What exactly is intelligence and how can it be measured? Do IQ tests measure intelligence? Is there a single concept of intelligence?
The American psychologist Howard Gardner has distinguished seven aspects of intelligence — linguistic (good with words), logical/mathematical (good at mathematical and logical reasoning), spatial (good with shapes and patterns), bodily/kinaesthetic (good at movement — coordinated), musical (good with music — playing, composing, etc), interpersonal (good with people) and intrapersonal (good at self understanding). Thus talk of intellectual inferiority or superiority is simple-minded and research based on it likely to be a waste of time. Nevertheless, it might be said that whatever the actual merits of the research it would be a mistake to ban it. It is simply too dangerous to go down that path for it leads to totalitarianism. Perhaps it would be a mistake to ban it, but should such research be funded?
Thus, it is a matter of choosing between free and open inquiry on the one hand and the threat of totalitarianism on the other. Should we allow research that may cause harm to certain vulnerable groups in society? But if we don't, how do we draw a line between research which is to be allowed and research which is not to be allowed? Are there any criteria for distinguishing between them? Is it possible to disallow some research and still maintain a spirit of free and open inquiry?