The McMaster authors argue researchers have a duty to 'attend to how their contributions will be used' and to 'modify their presentation' accordingly. This elevates anticipatory framing—tailoring how findings are communicated based on expected political uptake—alongside methodological rigor.
— It reframes scientific neutrality by making political downstream effects a stated part of research ethics, raising questions about gatekeeping and how evidence informs policy.
Aporia
2025.10.10
70% relevant
Pinker’s 'don’t go there' rationale echoes the view that researchers should curtail or reshape inquiry to avoid harmful downstream use; the article pushes back, arguing such restraint is indistinguishable from censorship in practice and cannot rest on mere tact analogies.
Jesse Singal
2025.08.27
100% relevant
Their statement: 'Authors of scientific articles have a responsibility to attend to how their contributions will be used and to modify their presentation... accordingly.'
Jesse Singal
2025.08.12
65% relevant
Singal argues researchers should avoid framing ('mankeeping') that dehumanizes men and invites backlash, aligning with the claim that scholars must attend to presentation and downstream effects of their work.