The U.S. Office of Research Integrity's proposed updates on investigating scientific misconduct could burden universities and research institutions. The long-term impact of this policy may lead life science companies to become more selective in developing certain molecules derived from federally supported research, risking the scientific enterprise at the NIH. A new paper highlights scientific censorship by scientists themselves, while the new director of the National Institutes of Health aims to make NIH-funded clinical research more inclusive and accessible to the public.
A new paper points to an unexpected source for scientific censorship: scientists themselves. https://t.co/Ssgc83D3gK @insidehighered https://t.co/hTwdc8dDRF
Universities and research institutions comment that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity's proposed updates on investigating scientific misconduct could place an undue burden on them. https://t.co/748Htj7zjF
The new director of the National Institutes of Health says her highest priority is making NIH-funded clinical research more inclusive and more accessible to the public. https://t.co/dHacnDiCOj
A team of authors, including 24 HxA members, published a groundbreaking paper this week: “Prosocial Motives Underlie Scientific Censorship by Scientists: A Perspective and Research Agenda," in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. @PNASNews https://t.co/kX2lKiaH1n https://t.co/Ca7V6FDPMM
An excellent overview of our recent PNAS paper on scientists censoring science, by one of the paper's lead authors: Lee Jussim. @PsychRabble https://t.co/7MUH9cCqyn
An excellent overview of our recent PNAS paper on scientists censoring science, by one of the paper's lead authors: Lee Jussim. @PsychRabble https://t.co/WdUTWDg7Lz https://t.co/AS713UsKew
An excellent overview of our recent PNAS paper on scientists censoring science, by one of the paper's lead authors: Lee Jussim! @PsychRabble https://t.co/WdUTWDfzW1 https://t.co/uSOj3nopkZ
Ethics review boards at universities censor controversial research in the name of vaguely specified and untested harm claims. Important new paper by @PsychRabble @ImHardcory & colleagues https://t.co/2LxEEFWvaf https://t.co/udljs3wd14
The long-term impact of this policy will be to compel life science companies to become more selective in developing certain molecules derived from federally supported research - risking the impact of the great scientific enterprise we've built at the NIH. https://t.co/LOoDse0zcR