Scientists, censorship, and suppression: A combined comparative‐processual analysis of U.S. cases involving chemical and climate change expertise

Abstract

Although scientific research is often crucial for efforts to achieve improved environmental regulation for industrial products and processes, scientists who document or publicize research on possible risks can face suppression or censorship by industry, government, and other actors. This study contributes to the sociology of science by examining the challenges and responses of environmental scientists in the U.S. in two research areas: toxic chemicals and climate change. Drawing on comparative and processual methods applied to a small‐N, unique data set of cases, the study conducts formal coding of variables for contextual conditions and four general categories of the suppression sequence: triggering circumstances and actions, suppression actions, responses, and outcomes. The first stage of the analysis identifies significant relationships between contextual conditions and the suppression sequence, such as the different forms of suppression that government employees and university professors face. The second stage identifies three composite processual sequences: employment risk for government scientists, records attacks for both government and university scientists, and reputation attacks on university scientists. Together, the two types of analysis advance research by identifying novel relationships in a more systematic way than is accomplished with the standard approach of one or a few cases. The approach also examines the benefits of a mode of comparative analysis that can be more readily connected with theory testing via process tracing at the case level. The practical issue of responding to suppression or censorship is considered, which could be of value to environmental scientists and their partners.