What to say? Scientist think twice Credit: Istockphoto

Political controversies may exert a 'chilling effect' on scientific research, according to a recent study (PLoS Med. 5, e222; 2008). The analysis focused on a controversy that began in 2003 when a US congressman, backed by the conservative Washington, DC–based Traditional Values Coalition, criticized HIV-related research grants funded by the country's National Institutes of Health (NIH), calling them a “waste of taxpayer money.” Joanna Kempner, a professor at Rutgers University and author of the new study, surveyed 82 researchers who received such grants for their work investigating sex- and drug-related behavior or mental health topics. Kempner found that about 51% of the targeted scientists she interviewed had responded to the criticism from Congress by removing controversial words from titles and abstracts in subsequent grant applications to the NIH between 2003 and 2005. The scientists cited a belief that conservative critics selected their list of grants to target from an NIH database designed to inform taxpayers about scientific findings. The survey also revealed that researchers would rather remove controversial aspects of their work than find another funder: 24% of those surveyed had changed their research agendas and 17% dropped controversial topics completely from subsequent grant applications, including sexual health, abortion and homosexuality.

In an official response to the controversy, NIH Acting Director Raynard Kington said, “I want scientists to use accuracy and precision in their descriptions, so other scientists can understand and perhaps replicate their studies—and not worry what may appeal to the political winds. That's a dangerous and sad direction.”

According to Kempner, “the real challenge for policymakers is to figure out how to encourage this public voice in scientific decision-making while enabling scientists to submit and conduct innovative studies, even when they may provoke controversy.”

Michael Halpern; manager of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says that it's appropriate for the government to set general research priorities, but not to micromanage the scientific enterprise.