File:One example of potential epistemic consequence of scientific censorship.jpg

English: "Green stars are evidence that X is true. Red stars are evidence that X is not true. Assume that each piece of evidence is equally weighty. Censorship that obstructs evidence against X will produce a peer-reviewed literature that concludes that X is true when most likely it is not."

"There is at least one obvious cost of scientific censorship: the suppression of accurate information. Systematic censorship, and thus systematic misunderstandings, could emerge if a majority of scientists share particular preferences or prejudices that influence their scientific evaluations. Fig. 2 illustrates how the published literature could overwhelmingly indicate that X is True, even if X is more often Not True. If social processes align to discourage particular findings regardless of their validity, subsequent understandings of reality will be distorted (113), increasing the likelihood of false scientific consensus and dysfunctional interventions that waste valuable time and resources for no benefit or possibly even negative consequences (114)."

Note that the above is just one example and a very simple one – there can also be cases where the potential things (like options / potential measures) investigated or thoroughly investigated are only in the small circle here, leading to problematic conclusions