The National Science Foundation (NSF) has come under scrutiny for maintaining an internal list of words deemed controversial, including "women," "gender," "minority," and "biases." This development has sparked significant concern among researchers at the University of California at San Diego, who fear that their work might be jeopardized if it includes language considered problematic. Under the Trump administration, there is a clear intent to regulate the language used in scientific research and grant applications. This directive has even led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to remove webpages related to gender, prompting a federal judge to order their reinstatement.
The Washington Post reveals that NSF staff must navigate a flowchart to determine if a research project should be flagged for review based on its use of certain words. Rebecca Fielding-Miller, a public health scientist at UCSD, describes this list of banned words as "Orwellian," warning that it could impede critical research. Furthermore, this move by the Trump administration is seen as a form of censorship, compelling scientists to self-censor to avoid potential repercussions.
The issue extends beyond the NSF. The National Institutes of Health and various university research departments are also reviewing and potentially censoring language in research projects. The erasure of the word "women" from public websites like those of NASA and the CDC underscores the growing concern about how these changes could impact scientific discourse.
"If I can’t say the word ‘women,’ I can’t tell you that an abortion ban is going to hurt women." – Rebecca Fielding-Miller
Critics argue that the Trump administration's executive orders are targeting "gender ideology" and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs under the guise of restoring freedom of speech. This has left researchers in a difficult position, forcing them to self-censor and avoid using language that may be deemed problematic by these new measures.
"I guess a word that’s not on here is ‘men’, and I guess a word that I don’t see on here is ‘white’, so I guess we’ll see what’s going on with white men and what they need." – Rebecca Fielding-Miller
Margaret Atwood, renowned author, joined the conversation by tweeting an article headline questioning, "Why can’t we say ‘woman’ anymore?" This sentiment echoes the frustrations of many in the scientific community who find themselves constrained by these restrictions.
"Why can’t we say ‘woman’ anymore?" – Margaret Atwood
The ramifications of these actions are profound. With critical words being censored, the very essence of scientific inquiry and communication is at risk. Scientists are now tasked with navigating an environment where even the most fundamental terms are scrutinized, potentially hindering their ability to convey findings accurately and effectively.
In some instances, this censorship extends to shocking cases unrelated to traditional scientific research. A human-trafficking ring was accused of harvesting human eggs from Thai women who believed they were participating in surrogacy programs in Georgia. Such cases highlight the broader implications of language control and censorship in areas beyond academia.
The NSF's identification of "women," "gender," "minority," and "biases" as hot-button words raises questions about the motivations behind these actions. Critics argue that this approach serves not to restore freedom of speech but rather to limit discourse under a pretext of maintaining control over scientific narratives.