Objectively Speaking with Anna Krylov Transcript

How did institutions' academic publications dedicated to truth-seeking come to prioritize ideology over scientific rigor, and what does that mean for the future of science? That’s what Anna Krylov explored in this recent episode of Objectively Speaking.

She joined Atlas Society CEO Jennifer Grossman to discuss her experience as a quantum chemist and journal editor, her decision to cut ties with one of science’s most prestigious publishers, and the growing influence of DEI mandates, censorship policies, and “citation justice” in academic publishing. Drawing on her upbringing under Soviet communism and her decades-long career in chemistry, Krylov offers a sobering warning about the politicization of knowledge and why we must defend merit, objectivity, and intellectual courage. Watch the interview HERE or read the transcript below.

‍

JAG: Jennifer Anju Grossman

AK: Anna Krylov

‍

JAG: Hi everyone and welcome to the 287th episode of Objectively Speaking. I'm JAG, CEO of The Atlas Society. I am very excited to have Professor Anna Krylov join us to discuss how scientific institutions dedicated supposedly to truth seeking began to prioritize ideology over scientific rigor. Anna, thank you so much for joining us.

AK: I'm very honored to be on your podcast. Thank you.

JAG: A special thank you because Anna just returned from some of that crazy weather and is herself under the weather. We're going to have to be a little patient and gracious. Let's start if we will, with your origin story. You were born in Donetsk, Ukraine, which obviously is in the news. You were in college in Moscow when the Berlin Wall fell. What was it like growing up under communism?

We weren't exactly starving, but we were spending time standing in endless lines to get some basic stuff like groceries, butter, eggs, meat. The first time I saw a banana was, I think, in eighth grade.

AK: Well, it was really very different from what you might have experienced growing up. The standard of living was very, very different. Everything was in short supply. We weren't exactly starving, but we were spending time standing in endless lines to get some basic stuff like groceries, butter, eggs, meat. The first time I saw a banana was, I think, in eighth grade. Then, of course, procuring things like new pants or new boots, that was a whole project and undertaking. We were living, also, in pretty cramped quarters. Having things like your own bedroom that you do not share with anyone else was an idea out of this world, out of our world. But poverty, of course, that's the most important aspect of life. 

You do not need bananas or a closet full of clothes to be happy. I do have happy memories from my childhood. It's not that it was all negative, but maybe the more important thing that really permeated our lives was ideology. A Marxist-Leninist ideology. From a very early age, from kindergarten, once you go into the world, it was clear we knew that we are not just living our lives, we are advancing the world revolution. We are fighting to liberate the masses from the oppressors. We are in a war with the West, an existential war, for that matter. Everything and everyone was scrutinized through the lens of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Literally everything. I mean books, literature, music, chemistry, even. As part of this, it was also very clear for anyone as you grow up, that all nonconforming ideas and actions were punished. They knew that even if you yourself didn't get in trouble, they knew that you can get in jail for reading a wrong book or get into a mental hospital for writing a wrong book.  

The collective, I think, was more effective than the KGB, because it was always with you, and it was deployed on minute indiscretions to put people in line, and it was always there.

Also, what I remember very vividly is that not speaking was not enough. You cannot just keep your head low and mind your own business. One had to enthusiastically engage and literally from the kindergarten. I remember a slogan from first grade: “Who is not with us is against us, and God help those who are against us.” As part of it, you had to be a member of a communist organization appropriate for your age, also starting from the first grade. Then as part of it, you had to actively participate in various events, like May and November demonstrations, some political rallies where we would condemn the West and require some political actions like free Angela Davis, and frequent events like brainwashing sessions where they would talk about current events from the lens of Marxist-Leninism. Maybe the last one I want to mention, because I was recently vividly reminded of this, was “the warmth of collectivism,” the collective. The collective was there to watch over you and to enforce compliance. Another banner I remember from school in a classroom, in Russian, goes like this, which means, “If you can't, we will teach you. If you don't want to, we will make you.” The collective, I think, was more effective than the KGB, because it was always with you, and it was deployed on minute indiscretions to put people in line, and it was always there.

JAG: You must have had some shivers then going down your spine when you heard our mayor in New York calling to replace the “frigidity of rugged individualism” with the “warmth of collectivism.” You know what you're describing. Right before the show, Anna and I were talking and didn't want to put her on the spot on the show, so I said, well, have you read Ayn Rand? She said, well, it definitely wasn't on the reading list when I was at the university in the Soviet Union, and. she just recently discovered it and read The Fountainhead. I look forward to her going through the rest of Rand's oeuvre.

At some point, Anna, you'll have to read—I can't say it's my favorite because it doesn't quite have the same sense of life, but without any spoilers, she wrote—We The Living, which was her most autobiographical novel. It was about a young scientist, a young female engineer, growing up under Soviet tyranny. I’ll be interested to see how much you find there that reminds you of your experience. Tell us a little bit about your education, how you came to be a professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California.

AK: Yes, my education in school in Donetsk and environs. My formal schooling was, I think, at best mediocre. The school was not very high quality. But from early on I was Russia's reader. I would read everything that I can get my hands on. In my home we had a lot of books. In school I would read textbooks on all subjects for the entire year in a week. Once we get them, I would read them and that would be enough for me. I would be reading popular books like science and science magazines. Popular magazines, which usually were way above my head, but I would read them anyway. Socially that wasn't a ticket for success and acceptance. I was not very popular, I was quite isolated in school. 

It was sixth grade when I cajoled my mother into buying me a chemistry set. At this time they still had chemicals in it. I was very happy to set up my chemistry lab.

But then I started participating in student Olympiads. That was a Russian tradition, a USSR tradition, when students would be sent to compete in different disciplinary competitions. I was thrilled by that. I was attending all of them, most frequently chemistry, physics, math. The reasons I liked it were because, first, I was getting kicks out of adrenaline. I was showing signs of becoming an adrenaline junkie. The second reason is that it was the first time when I was around kids and especially boys with whom I could talk about academic science. That was okay and it wasn't so. Then the thing that really got me into chemistry was when I got my hands on chemistry, actual chemistry. It also didn't happen in school. I think it was sixth grade when I cajoled my mother into buying me a chemistry set. At this time they still had chemicals in it. I was very happy to set up my chemistry lab. I ran through the official recommended activities very quickly. Then I started to acquire chemicals and get pretty decent inventory with strong acids, with permanganate, with all this stuff. Then I went on my own. It was not always safe. Well, often it wasn't safe, but it was a thrill. That's how I got into chemistry. 

Then I went to study in Moscow State again, despite my family wishes, because my family strongly discouraged me from that line of career. I studied in Moscow State. It was a very good education. We had our share of political brainwashing that was also a required part. But overall education was great. In Moscow State that was when I first got exposed to the mathematical foundation, to quantum mechanics, and that really changed my direction because that was the first time I realized that we can predict chemical events and properties and not just memorize what molecules are doing. That changed my career direction.

JAG: Yes. You describe yourself as a quantum chemist; can you give us a layperson's take on how quantum applies to chemistry? What is the main focus of your research and what problems do you work on now?

AK: Chemistry is concerned with how molecules interact with each other, with the environment, with light, and quantum mechanics is a part of physics. Quantum mechanics has, in principle, answers to any possible question a chemist can ask. Because the Schroedinger equation that describes atoms and electrons, i.e. molecules, has all the answers, literally answers to any possible question. But there is a catch, and the catch is that to solve this equation by brute force, we cannot, except for some trivial cases. I think about quantum mechanics, it's like a treasure chest. It's a treasure chest with all the goods we want to get our hands on, but it's locked by this intimidating clock of complexity of solving the Schrodinger equation and what quantum chemistry is. Quantum chemistry provides the key to unlock this treasure chest and the way it does it. We develop smart, physically motivated approximations to the stern German equation. We use mathematical manipulation and computer algorithms to make solving this equation tractable. Ultimately, we write software, computer software, and that's what I do for a living. Quantum mechanics is the foundation. Quantum chemistry is the practical way to take advantage of it. That's what I am.

JAG: You describe failures as instrumental to success, and that's definitely something that I emphasize here at The Atlas Society. I, of course, want us to try to avoid unnecessary mistakes, but my philosophy is, if you're not failing, you're not learning, and you're probably not risking enough. What is a key failure from your early career that ultimately led to a breakthrough in your work?

That was supposed to be the foundation for my future research for quite some time. Then it didn't work. It just didn't work. I was devastated and frankly I was scared.

AK: Yes, failures are important. I used to be a rock climber, so the mantra that if you are not falling, if you are not learning, it means you are not trying hard enough. That's very true. But in chemistry, I think it wasn't a monumental failure, but it came at a very critical time when I just started my independent career at UC and as an assistant professor the tenure clock is ticking, and you are under very strong pressure to make your mark so you can be considered for tenure. At that time, I had this idea, which I thought was brilliant, of a new approach to solve Schroedinger equations. I thought it would really revolutionize how we tackle it. I spent, I think, two full years developing it, developing equations and implementing it in a computer code, because that's hard work, and it takes a long time to do it right. I made big plans around it. I thought, I will do this and this and that. Basically that was supposed to be the foundation for my future research for quite some time. Then it didn't work. It just didn't work. I was devastated and frankly I was scared because I thought, well, I do not know, I have three more years left and I do not have anything to show for the two years that have already passed. 

But then it turns out, as I realized soon, luckily, that this foundation that I created working on a failed idea, it helped me very soon and it was invaluable because at some point I got a new idea of the spin flip method that ultimately worked very well. Then because I had all this foundation, all these building blocks, I was able to implement and test it very quickly and publish it, and this platform, all these things, all these two years of work, they weren't really wasted, even though they didn't lead to the successful idea. That was a very important lesson for me that there is no such thing as complete failure.

JAG: Yes, and I think it's an important lesson also for young people, who are so often coddled or overprotected from going out, getting a skinned knee, making some mistakes, and without that process, you don't gain the confidence and the resilience to take bigger, bigger risks and know that, yes, you've made a mistake, yes, it's disappointing, but you've got the self-esteem to be able to continue to persevere and try something new. Now you have served on the editorial boards of numerous peer-review journals. Did that insider's role give you more of a front-row seat, so to speak, at how decisions about who or what to publish were being made?

One important lesson is that no one is perfect. Editors are not perfect, reviewers are not perfect, many papers are not. Well, most papers are not perfect. But overall the system works pretty well.

AK: Yes, I served on advisory boards for a number of journals and more importantly as the editor of two chemistry journals. What can I tell you? It's not really a secret. There are no behind-the-scenes things in chemistry publishing, at least in STEM. But it does help to see how the sausage is made. You understand better how a peer-review process is executed. You understand better what difficulties, what challenges editors face when they have to do their work and sometimes when they have to make difficult decisions. Yes, it was a useful experience. Maybe one important lesson is that no one is perfect. Editors are not perfect, reviewers are not perfect, many papers are not. Well, most papers are not perfect. But overall the system works pretty well. It's robust, it's resilient, and when it's functioning correctly it achieves its goal, it achieves its purpose of an epistemic funnel. A lot of things go in, but what comes out the other end, that's validated knowledge, not always correct. Sometimes we have to go back and revise, but it's effective.

JAG: All right, now, you came to my attention because as viewers know, I'm an avid fan of The Free Press, and there you wrote a piece “Why I Cut Ties with Science's Top Publisher” and the associated Heterodox piece. You cite examples in 2019, 2022, October 2025. Was this a progression for you coming to question them over time?

AK: Well, maybe not necessarily a logical progression, because I was concerned about all these issues since 2021, probably. But what the three milestones, the three examples illustrate is they illustrate three distinct ways in which ideology can subvert the mission of a publisher. These three distinct ways are injecting ideology, which most often comes under the name of diversity, equity and inclusion, DEI, in the form of social engineering in the editorial process. The second example, the second way in which the subversion happens is ideologically motivated, institutionalized censorship, suppression of the knowledge and ideas. The third, the most perhaps concerning one, is when ideology is directly injected in the published content in the published papers. The three examples illustrate these three aspects. One was this diversity commitment when they openly say that we will use diversity when we look for reviewers and solicit content from authors. The second one, a censorship manifesto, of course. The third one is how editors now encourage authors to write inclusively and to exercise things like citation justice and so on.

JAG: Yes, well, that caught my eye. What is citation justice? Was that the straw that led to your decision to publish against their pattern of sacrificing scientific rigor?

Then to do justice, what do you do? Well, you have to cite them to correct for this, regardless whether their work actually merits citation in a particular paper. The citation justice, it's a way to treat a bibliography in published papers as a spoil system which you use to undo past purported injustices.

AK: Sometimes it's even difficult to explain with a straight face because it sounds like something like a hoax rather than something that can be happening in serious institutions. Citation justice is one of the examples of application of critical theories to the field of publishing. The premise, as with all critical analysis: critical race theory, critical this/critical that is that there is inherent struggle and power imbalance and that there are oppressors and oppressed. If some demographics are not represented equally, it's because of deliberate oppression. Citation justice says that, again, axiomatically claims that authors from preferred-identity groups, from the oppressed, from women, racial minorities, and what not, that they are undercited, so their work is just completely, not completely, but overlooked. Then to do justice, what do you do? Well, you have to cite them to correct for this, regardless whether their work actually merits citation in a particular paper. The citation justice, it's a way to treat a bibliography in published papers as a spoil system which you use to undo past purported injustices.

JAG: So, a lot of the guests that we've had on the show would make the argument that we have reached and we have passed peak woke even with this administration's anti-DEI mandates as evidence of that. But you seem to push back against that. What's your take?

AK: Yes, so we do have some changes of the Overton window(s), so to say, with, well, actually not with administration, but the result of the past election signals that many people understand the pernicious nature of this ideology. Maybe not necessarily in publishing, not many people care about chemistry publishing, but in other domains of life. So, yes, we have a new administration. What has changed is that government-mandated DEI practices such as loyalty oaths that people had to write to get a job or to get funding, these things now are not mandated and even declared undesirable by the government. This is good. Now people are more willing to speak and less scared. This is also good. 

In professional organizations, in honor societies, in publishing, we see that they’re actually doubling down on DEI, like the Nature example illustrates. That's very concerning because it shows that this idea, this rot, is very deep and that this subversion, ideological subversion of our institutions, it's not going away on its own.

But, all in all, I can only describe what is happening as slowing the momentum. I cannot say the pendulum has come back and why I'm saying that, well, we see at many institutions, universities, most of all professional societies, publishers, you see strong resistance to change. Sometimes it's subversive. Like universities are playing the shell game. Now when Trump said that you will lose federal funding if you engage in discriminatory DEI activities, well, they rename them, they try to hide them, they give them different names and all that. Now in professional organizations, in honor societies, in publishing, we see that they’re actually doubling down on DEI, like the Nature example illustrates. That's very concerning because it shows that this idea, this rot, is very deep and that this subversion, ideological subversion of our institutions, it's not going away on its own and that we should find a way to reform it, to get rid of it from the bottom, not rely on administration solving this problem for us.

JAG: We've got a very lively conversation going on in the chat. Here's a great question from Ilyishin: Is there evidence that people will become more skeptical or resistant to even good science because they believe academic institutions are compromised?

AK: Oh, that's actually an excellent point. I can talk for hours about it because one of the really big implications of this political subversion of institutions that are supposed to produce knowledge is growing mistrust in science and in academia. There are surveys that show that Americans are losing their trust in large numbers. For example, 2/3 of Americans now on both political ends think that universities are going in the wrong direction. Also mistrusting some science may be not as high, but it's growing, which is very concerning because there are many negative consequences of that. 

Now some people actually study this phenomenon, why people trust or mistrust science for a living. They came across research by Professor Kahan who asked this question, what makes people trust or mistrust scientific facts that are presented to them? One of the common hypotheses and thinking was, well, people are not very well-educated, they’re unwashed masses. They cannot judge. That's why they do not trust evidence when it's presented to them. It turns out that's wrong. That's what his research shows and what he found out, that the biggest, the most significant determinant is when people perceive whether a particular topic is politicized.  

If people see that scientists are not empirical, objective experts, but they are playing the partisan game, then of course, why should we trust them? Right? They're just trying to score points for their party.

If they see this topic as an issue on which we have partisan divide (if you are a good Democrat, you believe that the planet is burning. If you are a good Republican, you believe that climate change is a hoax), then people start making decisions not based on the facts that are presented to them, but on their group identity, that's extremely dangerous. But then, of course, this politicization of science, that's what drives it. Because if people see that scientists are not empirical, objective experts, but they are playing the partisan game, then of course, why should we trust them? Right? They're just trying to score points for their party.

JAG: Yes, that is definitely a disturbing trend. Another good question here from Alan Turner:  Anna. Do you think this is purely ideologically driven or is there a financial incentive among these publishers?”

AK: I think it's purely ideological. Now, of course, publishers are commercially motivated, financially motivated—I sat in many board meetings when they would be discussing how to increase ratings of their publication and what they can do to increase their portfolio and all that—and they are motivated by money. But this thing comes, I think, in a way, especially now when we see how many people now recognize this politicization as a negative thing, they still cannot drop it, because even if it leads to financial losses, I think it's pure ideology. Ideology at this level, when it becomes faith, when it's not grounded in reality and people would just do it till they completely destroy their institutions.

JAG: Talking about restoring scientific rigor to these institutions, how would you define scientific rigor and what core principles distinguish it from, say, other forms of inquiry?

Our axiom that is foundational to everything is that objective reality exists and it can be understood. That's something that postmodernists reject, actually.

AK: Yes, that's a good question. I'm a practicing scientist, so I learned what scientists do by doing it and by example. Only later I started to think about where these principles and techniques were coming from and it's very interesting to see and to understand the foundation behind modern science. I think the most important aspect of it, of science and of scientific rigor by extension, is that it's based on reality, on objective reality. Our axiom that is foundational to everything is that objective reality exists and it can be understood. That's something that postmodernists reject, actually. Scientific rigor, that's how we go about it. How do we understand objective reality, how do we find the truth? I think it has two components and the more important one is that it's more about discipline of the mind. There are, of course, specific protocols. They're important, but that's, I think, secondary. 

The key component of this discipline of the mind is that it's empirically grounded, which means it's based on facts. We build theories aiming to explain how the world operates. But theories need to be tested against reality at each step and discard it or modify it if they contradict the observations. Logical coherence and the aesthetic beauty of your theory is important, but it's not sufficient.

JAG: Well, and I think you are an Objectivist without necessarily even knowing it yet. I'm excited for you to continue your Ayn Rand journey. Can you talk about the 2022 Nature Human Behaviour example which you described as a censorship manifesto?

AK: Yes, that was perhaps one of the biggest, most concerning things that happened at this time. So, censorship in principle is antithetical to knowledge production because if we hide and suppress knowledge, well, we obviously harm knowledge production. Publishers who play this critical role in this process, they are supposed to be the stewards of knowledge production and the defenders of it. Then Nature Human Behaviour publishes this unsigned editorial, which I think is just a manifesto. They say that with no euphemism, that they will not publish valid research, research that doesn't have flaws in data interpretation and collection, if they consider this research harmful to groups, which is, of course, very subjective criteria. 

They say that in the future, if findings of research can in some very subjective, undefined way harm these groups, then we will just suppress the research and will not publish it. So, you cannot think about a more unscientific act than this manifesto. The fact that it was published in this flagship publishing house is really disturbing.

I want to quote from it because it's just that their language sends chills down my spine every time I read it. That's how it goes. They say, “although academic freedom is fundamental, it's not unbounded,” so you can see where it's going. Then they say, “advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good.” We all agree with that. But then they say, “in some cases, however, potential harms to the population studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.” By potential harms, they do not mean that some subjects, research subjects, have been given some unverified treatments and drugs or anything. They say that in the future, if findings of research can in some very subjective, undefined way harm these groups, then we will just suppress the research and will not publish it. So, you cannot think about a more unscientific act than this manifesto. The fact that it was published in this flagship publishing house is really disturbing.

JAG: Many scientists, I think, agree with you, perhaps privately, but they stay silent. What do you think keeps so many highly intelligent people from defending scientific rigor and defending merit openly?

They say, well, yes, we do have problems in academia, we do have problems in our institutions, but what about Trump? The only thing that matters is stopping Trump.

AK: Yes, well, when you talk to people in private, they will tell you exactly why, so you do not need to guess. The most common fear? Complicity and conformity. So, they explain their silence. They would say that they are motivated by their commitment to science. They say, I'm a scientist and I do not want to be distracted from my primary role. If I speak out, it will be a distraction and it may even harm my research, my students, my postdocs. Therefore, I will stay silent. A very old set of arguments that we heard historically in totalitarian societies from people that choose to stay silent when things get dicey.

They say, well, if we criticize A, B, C, it will play in the wrong hands, and we do not want to give them ammunition because they will use it for nefarious purposes.

Now we hear also that there is a new tune to it. Now I see that quite a few people prefer not to speak up. They are motivated by political and partisan concerns. They say, well, yes, we do have problems in academia, we do have problems in our institutions, but what about Trump? The only thing that matters is stopping Trump. They say, well, if we criticize A, B, C, it will play in the wrong hands, and we do not want to give them ammunition because they will use it for nefarious purposes. That's very common now, unfortunately, and it really doesn't make any sense to me because regardless of what you think about your political opponents and adversaries, it never serves a good purpose to hide and to overlook problems in your own home.

JAG: Yes, well, as Ayn Rand reminds us, you can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality. Anna, how do current DEI initiatives in science affect, say, grant review processes and publication standards?

AK: Again, I will be talking mostly about American reality because it's different now from European. The Biden administration very heavy-handedly injected DEI into the funding process. I wrote a whole paper about it, a long boring paper with a lot of exhibits. They dedicated, they diverted large resources, by some estimates from 10 to 30% of National Science Foundation funding to pure DEI projects such as discriminatory projects when money is given based on identity, or to some loony projects when people would study racist mathematics, how racist mathematics is, or how to weave indigenous knowledge into chemistry and things of that nature. Now that was one problem. The second problem was also under the Biden administration, that technical grants required DEI plans. With each technical grant, no matter what you write for DOE or other funding agencies like NASA, you would have to pledge your commitment, make axiomatic statements about systemic racism and systemic barriers for women and what's not, and put up a plan how, in addition to your technical work, or through your technical work, how you will advance goals of DEI. 

Now what that means is that at best the selection of technical grants was not based purely on scientific merit. Now on top of it, there could have been social engineering behind the scenes. That's hard to quantify. We do not have data for it. But I suspect that things were happening because I know from private conversations that programs at different agencies were relentlessly criticized for the lack of equity, for the lack of proportional representation. That quantum chemistry program doesn't have 50% of women and things of that nature. This is now reversed largely by executive orders and by change of leadership. That's good. Is there still something going on behind the scenes? I do not know, so I do not want to speculate. 

I think funding currently is okay. Publishing is another matter, because publishing houses do not answer to the government and that's a good thing. They are completely independent and based on what we see in these manifestos and their public claims that they have their commitment to DEI above all. I would suspect that, yes, it does impact what is published and has impact on quality. Again, it's very hard to quantify because I do not know whether we have some not high-quality paper being given preferential treatment because of the demographics of the authors or not, so hard to measure.

JAG: We got a question here from Lock Stock Barrel. He wants to know, are there any scientific journals you see as models for how things should be done? You also mentioned previously the difference between American and European journals. Is there less of this going on in other places around the world?

In Europe DEI is still officially an official policy. There are positions for women only or minorities or sexual minorities. Funding agencies are doing it quite heavy-handedly.

AK: Well, there is more of this going on in other places because in Europe just recently I saw an announcement on the mail list about a new professorship in physics, experimental physics, open for women professors. That's your first qualifying requirement: to be a woman. In Europe DEI is still officially an official policy. There are positions for women only or minorities or sexual minorities. Funding agencies are doing it quite heavy-handedly. That's all there. Now with publishing my feeling is that there is not much difference between American publishers and European. Like we talked about Nature and they just get triggered by them. But our own flagship publisher, Science magazine, well they didn't go as far as Nature, but they also have a number of ideological actions of similar level. 

Now a good model? Well, I do not know a good model. But I have by now three papers published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Believe it or not, there is such a journal and that's a new initiative. The journal was established by several moral philosophers, which is not my field of study. Right? But I will tell you how I got to know them, by Peter Singer and a few others. The reason they founded it is because they realized that the ideological corruption of some standard journals is so high that people just cannot publish certain work. It's a very taboo topic. Now, I got into this journal because in 2023, I think I co-authored the paper with this really boring and mundane title. It's called In Defense of Merit in Science where we tried to document what is happening now, the attacks on merit that we see in publishing, in hiring in different agencies and appeal to common sense and warn the community and try to speak up against it.

We couldn't publish this paper anywhere. We tried several outlets and we were turned down. Then I learned that there is this Journal of Controversial Ideas. I sent a draft to them and sent them correspondence with some other publishers to justify that. Merit is in fact now a controversial idea. After peer review we were published in this journal. That's one of the examples of how people try to respond to this. But it's very difficult to build these new journals from scratch. It's very difficult to do it in chemistry, for example, when we have a lot of existing publications and it's with budgets, with their money. It's very hard to just build the parallels.

JAG: We are talking about scientific journals, we're talking about chemistry. My Modern Galt asks do you think this problem is happening more in some disciplines than others? Let's say sociology journals or political science journals or philosophy?

AK: Surely, yes, yes, it surely does. Through my speaking out I get to know people from way outside my field. The answer, the short answer, is yes. I can tell you one of the examples of this ideological subversion of the field is when they started to censor particular research, when there are taboo topics, taboo findings. Last year in France, in January 2025, I co-organized a conference titled Censorship in the Sciences Interdisciplinary Perspective. We invited attendees  to a three-day conference and we had people from very different fields, from social science, from sector psychology, from political science, from STEM, quite a few people from STEM. These three days were filled with talks that documented ideologically motivated censorship in different disciplines. 

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, are really far gone. Its ideological capture is incredible. In STEM the situation is not that bad. But there are subfields which are captured and  scrutinized by ideology.

What emerges from that? Anthropology, sociology, psychology, are really far gone. Its ideological capture is incredible. In STEM the situation is not that bad. But there are subfields which are captured and  scrutinized by ideology. Examples we had at the conference: if you are doing research in life sciences or medicine on anything related to gender and sex, it’s very hard, a lot of censorship, a lot of ideological control and pseudoscience. In other fields we heard at the conference that it’s captured not completely, but in significant extent it's climate research where there is again a preferred narrative and people, the information, the publications are heavy-handedly channeled in one particular direction. I think the correlation would be fields that are more rigorous or less captured, it's more quantitative, but I wouldn't think that there is a single field that is not captured at all.

JAG: You mentioned before this idea of postmodernism, that objective reality doesn't exist. Of course, that ideology has permeated both schools and universities. I'm wondering, are you seeing any generational shift in how young scientists that you come across view scientific objectivity versus social values.

AK: Yes. Unfortunately we do see that the younger generation is quite receptive to these ideas, which in part may be just because young people are usually more open to radical ideas. The saying that if you're young and conservative you have no heart, but if you are old and liberal you have no brain. There is something to that. I think also what we see is that the younger generation was really brainwashed intensely from school years in these ideas and they are coming to university already imbued with these ideas. 

In part I think it's our fault because not enough people openly spoke against this nonsense. They think that this barrage of op-eds and the statements by our professional societies, by publishers, by universities about the virtues of DEI, about systemic racism, about colonialism and decolonization of science, that was not opposed strongly enough. Then people get captured by this. Now the good thing is, though, I think it's not. Yes, we do see more young people that come taken by these ideas. But at the same time, surveys illustrate that there is a little bit of a shift in the views of Gen Z and that Gen Z now according to surveys is moving away from the woke ideology and in contrast to previous generations. I think there is hope, but there is a problem definitely that young people have these attitudes.

JAG: Yes. We have like eight minutes left and I didn't get to all of the questions that I wanted to ask, but I'm wondering, are there any reforms, any solutions that might help to restore scientific rigor at these journals and funding agencies?

For universities, it's research and education, period. No social justice, no changing the world. Research and education for publishers is publishing scientific research and exercising the peer-review process, editorial process, and that's it. Nothing else. Not advancing diversity, not doing citation justice, and what not.

AK: Yes. I mean reforms, I think, are pretty simple. What in my opinion, what needs to be done, I think, and it applies to every possible agency, to professional societies, to universities, to publishers is the reform should be that they should recommit to their original mission. For universities, it's research and education, period. No social justice, no changing the world. Research and education for publishers is publishing scientific research and exercising the peer-review process, editorial process, and that's it. Nothing else. Not advancing diversity, not doing citation justice, and what not. Same for professional societies. Chemical societies should be doing what their charter says, supporting the chemical profession, and it's not that they need to do much. They should stop doing what they are doing. They should jettison all these activities that they engaged in that subvert their mission. They should, of course, fire and stop all these DEI bureaucracies that should be gone because that's where this is coming from and that's it. Just get back to what they were supposed to be doing. That's a reform.

JAG: For young people that might be considering an education in STEM or a career, what advice would you give them during early stage research? Say to avoid the politicized.

AK: Fight, fight now, don't delay it because it's their future and, understandably, young people sometimes concerned about their career progression, they say, well, I cannot say anything now because I have to first get my job and all that. But if old people will be retired and gone in a pretty short time, and if they do not fight for their own future to secure the health of the field, there will be no field left. There will be nothing to live for. I think it's incredibly important that they show integrity and they not be complicit. This is capture.

JAG: Yes. My other piece of advice would be to read Ayn Rand and to realize that A is A, that there is an objective reality, and to be inspired by her vision of man's heroic potential. Maybe we can end with this. Anna, since you've just started discovering and reading Ayn Rand, any takeaways from her literature or ways in which they made you think about your experience a little differently?

I was really taken by The Fountainhead, because what resonated with me is the struggle of individual, of a person with a talent, with a vision, with this passion to create in his field, a struggle against this collective, against the establishment, against mediocrity, because mediocrity is always, by definition, present in large numbers and that's something antithetical to creativity and progress.

AK: Yes, well, I was really taken by The Fountainhead, because what resonated with me is the struggle of individual, of a person with a talent, with a vision, with this passion to create in his field, a struggle against this collective, against the establishment, against mediocrity, because mediocrity is always, by definition, present in large numbers and that's something antithetical to creativity and progress. The thought that this book inspired in me is that it's hard for the people who are creative and capable; it's always hard to move along in their life. It's much easier to be complicit, a mediocre person. But you have to be true to your calling. In some sense, there is no choice. If you just betray your calling and betray your vision, that's the end of you as a person. That's a very important lesson.

JAG: Yes, well, as Ayn Rand said, I cannot be a coward. I see the consequences all too clearly. So, Anna, no one's going to accuse you of cowardice. Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for the great scientific contributions, and thank you for standing up for reality. Really appreciate you!

AK: It was a pleasure. Thank you.

JAG: And who knows? Perhaps we'll somehow lure you to come and join us at Galt's Gulch in San Diego, June 4 through 6. I think you'd find a lot of like minds there. Thanks, everybody, for joining us. Thanks for your lively conversation. Thanks for the great questions. Next week, I'm going to be joined by my boss. I'm going to have The Atlas Society’s chairman of the Board, also chairman of the Board of the Cato Institute, Jay Lapeyre, join us to discuss his work with the Free Society Coalition. We'll see you then. Thanks.