Science and free speech

Facing the multifaced censorship in science

(This story first appeared in Bazkhord Magazine in Feb 2025)

Science is a human enterprise, and like any other human activity, it is influenced by its practitioners and the society in which it operates.

While there is debate among scholars of science and its development regarding whether science is entirely a social construct or if an independent and objective process can be attributed to the scientific method, few would dispute that science progresses within society, shaped by individuals who inherit biases, interests, fears, and concerns from their social conditions.

Even if we consider science as an independent entity—one that should advance solely based on logical reasoning, experimentation, repetition, and refinement, uninfluenced by external environments—the pressures exerted on the scientific community by political, social, religious, cultural, and economic forces inevitably shape its trajectory. In the best-case scenario, these pressures lead to the caricatured growth of science in specific fields while severing its connection with areas where environmental constraints hinder progress. This, in turn, distorts our understanding of reality, providing us with an unrealistic view of the world and, consequently, leading to caricatured decision-making when facing real-world issues.

In scenarios that historical experience suggests are more likely to occur, these barriers to the natural development of science do not merely create a distorted image of reality. Instead, they suppress criticism, hinder discussion and correction, or promote pseudo-scientific claims under the guise of scientific authority. The result is the growth of pseudoscience and superstition, and rather than merely producing a caricature of science, such influences create a monstrous distortion of knowledge that, once unleashed, becomes nearly impossible to control. For a long time, this monster shackles the progression of thought and inquiry.

Freedom of Expression and Science

A crucial part of science involves venturing into uncharted territories and the frontiers of our understanding. Another equally important aspect is the continuous reassessment, testing, skepticism, and revision of ideas that, over time, may have seemed firmly established.

When we step beyond the boundaries of our knowledge, we may have hypotheses about what lies ahead, but reality does not always conform to our expectations. As Dr. Bahram Mobasher, the distinguished Iranian cosmologist, puts it, “The most groundbreaking discoveries in science will be those that, even today, we cannot begin to imagine.”

However, whether we are consumers of science, members of a society where science evolves, or active participants in scientific research, we carry more than our accumulated scientific knowledge when exploring these frontiers. We also bear the heavy weight of social norms, values, cultural traditions, and ethical, political, and religious constraints.

Exploring beyond what we know may reveal that some of these inherited beliefs are redundant or incorrect, necessitating their removal or fundamental revision. This is precisely why scientists and researchers must learn, through years of professional practice, that rigid thinking and adherence to an unchangeable set of prior beliefs are incompatible with true scientific exploration.

As we venture into these new realms and encounter novel landscapes of knowledge, this process must not remain a personal or isolated experience. It may be called many things if it does, but it is not science. Observations and insights become part of science only when shared, discussed, tested, and used to refine or revise prior knowledge. This dynamic and interwoven nature of science (at least the science we engage with today) is fundamental. Suppose any part of this process is disrupted. In that case, if questioning is forbidden, discussing specific theories is prohibited, or revising past knowledge based on new findings is blocked—science suffers a stroke, halting its progress.

Freedom of Expression and the Many Faces of Opposition to It

If one were to compile a list of writings and thinkers who have addressed the relationship between freedom of expression and the development of science, the resulting document would be so extensive that it might never end. The connection between open societies and scientific progress is fundamental and vital when we speak of science in its modern, applied sense—or the specific context of natural sciences and mathematics. Yet opposition to freedom of thought and expression in science is not always openly or explicitly declared. This opposition often disguises itself in various forms, making it difficult to recognize.

The conflict is not always as clear-cut as the historical clashes between the Church and specific scientific ideas contradicting its philosophical doctrines. Even within the Church’s struggles, layers of complexity often obscured the true nature of these conflicts.

During the infamous witch hunts (a phenomenon that, in some ways, continues today), the Church did not explicitly claim that herbal remedies or healing methods practiced by specific individuals—often women living closer to nature—were ineffective. Instead, the narrative was framed as a moral and theological dispute, warning society that engaging with non-Christian healing traditions could lead to accusations of witchcraft.

The Church’s persecution of Galileo, which has since become a historical and symbolic tale, also had multiple layers. Today, some defenders of the Church argue that its issue with Galileo was not primarily about heliocentric versus geocentric view but rather his perceived disrespect toward the Pope and his public defiance. Yet, ultimately, Galileo was accused of heresy for his heliocentric views and sentenced to house arrest. A few years before him, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Rome.

Some today argue that Bruno’s execution had little to do with science. While true in one sense—his ideas about heliocentrism and extraterrestrial life stemmed more from mystical speculation than empirical observation—the fact remains that when he was burned, the Church still maintained a long list of prohibited and “heretical” scientific books. This list, which included nearly all works contradicting Church doctrine, was officially abolished only in 1966 by Pope Paul VI, but many Church institutions still reference it today.

Modern Suppression of Scientific Inquiry

This suppression of free scientific inquiry has persisted into modern times. Under Nazi rule, the concept of “Aryan science” was promoted, and any research contradicting it was condemned. Scientists had to conform to a worldview that endorsed racial superiority.

In the Soviet Union, Trofim Lysenko’s case is a notorious example. Under Stalin’s rule, Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favour of his unscientific theories. Instead of allowing open critique, his ideas became state doctrine, and dissenting scientists were persecuted. This policy severely damaged Soviet agricultural research, triggering a cascade of disastrous consequences.

Such suppression has not been limited to authoritarian regimes. Even in democratic societies, freedom of expression in science has been challenged. During the McCarthy era in the U.S., suspicion of communism was used as a tool to silence dissent. The House Un-American Activities Committee targeted many individuals, including J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project.

In more recent times, climate scientists have faced economic and professional threats from powerful fossil fuel lobbies seeking to discredit research on climate change. Similarly, under President Nixon, research into psychedelics such as LSD—potentially valuable for treating neurological disorders—was banned for ideological reasons, setting back progress for decades. Under George W. Bush, stem cell research was similarly suppressed due to ideological opposition, delaying advancements that might have addressed organ shortages and regenerative medicine.

New Forms of Censorship in the Modern Era

Censorship and suppression of free thought in science do not always come from traditional conservative forces. In modern times, new forms of ideological rigidity have emerged, often from unexpected directions. The rise of “cancel culture” in academic spaces has sometimes stifled open debate. Instead of inviting opposing viewpoints for discussion and critique, some groups aim to prevent certain ideas from being expressed.

Moreover, a new faction of scientists has emerged, forming a quasi-sect that demands unquestioning trust in their authority. Instead of engaging in reasoned debate, they dismiss criticism with contempt and ostracism. They forget that science is not about holding unquestionable truths but the logical processes leading to knowledge. Science should not fear questions—it thrives on them.

The Future of Free Inquiry in Science

Deborah Blum, director of the Knight Science Journalism Program at MIT, emphasizes the importance of transparency in science: “Everything grows better in the light.” This light must shine not only on scientific discoveries but also on the misconduct and biases of scientists themselves.

If freedom of expression and inquiry are curtailed—whether through legal, ideological, or societal means—science cannot thrive. While some ideas may be discredited within the scientific community through rigorous analysis, the suppression of individuals through discrimination, imprisonment, or exclusion only stifles intellectual progress.

As ideological rigidity gains ground worldwide, the fight for free scientific inquiry becomes more critical than ever. At the frontiers of human knowledge, breathtaking discoveries await. Any effort to limit the courage to explore them is an effort to sink humanity into intellectual stagnation.

Leave a Reply

*