'Chilling Effect': Can Science Get Taboo?
Study Finds Half of Scientists React to Political Controversy With Censorship
When Government Pays for Science
"I think it's important to note that Dr. Zerhouni vigorously responded and I think that sent a signal to the scientific community that we were committed ... we would be committed to study all parts of the human body, not just the parts you show the public," said Kington.
"We certainly didn't change our peer review process," he said.
Researchers at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and public policy nonprofit dedicated to reproductive issues and sexual health, haven't reported much of a change, either.
"I would say, in general, we have not felt constrained in regards to the public funding vehicles we have pursued," said Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute in New York. "Despite changes in the environment in D.C., we haven't felt that we were unable to pursue funding."
Despite such statements, Kempner said her work still points out a problem with science and politics.
"I still think this amount of behavioral change is important," said Kempner. "It's important to understand that activists play an important role in shaping what science is done, and what science isn't being done -- no matter who the activists are."
Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington D.C., agrees with Kempner on this point.
"This notion of the chilling effect hits across the federal government," said Grifo. "It's not just the folks who are being funded by federal funds, it's career scientists as well."
Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.
