How Politically Motivated Social Media and Lack of Political Diversity Corrupt Science

Abstract

We describe two sources of potential ideological bias in social science research. The first is the so-called post-publication-peer-review (PPPR) movement in science, which attempts to democratize, enhance, and diffuse scientific processes and content (e.g., citizen science, participatory science). We argue that PPPR is sometimes co-opted by ideologically motivated advocates to attack peer-reviewed, already published research they find politically, ideologically, or personally unappealing. Social media provides an easier means to perpetuate misinformation, and mean-spirited or polemical online comments can then polarize readers’ perceptions of scientific findings. Scientific canons of evidence are often absent from this online world. Because there are no mechanisms to ensure politically balanced viewpoints, online misinformation can spread, influencing beliefs and practices. A second and related form of sociopolitical bias is caused by political asymmetry among researchers: liberal/progressive researchers outnumber conservative/moderate researchers by an order of magnitude in the social sciences. This results in research questions being framed and methods being designed to appeal to liberals/progressives, sometimes without appropriate attention to alternative viewpoints, thus creating bias affecting analyses, conclusions, policies, and public perceptions of research.

We dedicate this chapter to our friend, Scott Lilienfeld, who attended the same public primary school as the first author—in Queens, New York, in the 1960s—and carried the trademark New-York-City “Brook No Bullshit” attitude throughout his life.