Censorship in science was debated this afternoon at the PCST 2014. Economics and politics have been pointed as the main reasons for the control over the work of science journalists and scientists. According to the panellists, the capacity to process and generate scientific data has soared and science communication has become more relevant over the last years. As its becomes more influencial, it starts to be perceived as a danger for some institutions. And this reaction is not limited to any particular political context or continent, observes Nick Perkins, from SciDev.Net. “Censorship may sound a very strong word, but when it comes to science, the stakes are quite high”, adds.

Perkins brought up the case in Canada, where the government imposed a list of banned topics of discussion to scientists, from salmon to snowflakes. Besides that, the journalist remembered the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on political spheres and media in OECD countries. “Independent of the communication model of science popularization, at this moment, we should  focus on finding a response for censorship”, advises.

Laura Tresca, a Freedom of Expression Officer in Article 19, in Brazil, talked about the ways that journalists can take action against censorship. “Setting ethical standards and setting  up mechanisms for complains, is a barrier against unjust  interventions. In extreme situations, they can count on  platforms that they will publish them anonymously, like wikleaks or reporter without borders (wefightcensorship.org)”, recommends Tresca.