A study of U.S. psychology professors reveals significant disagreement on controversial research conclusions and normative preferences regarding how such research should be treated. In 2021, qualitative interviews with 41 professors generated a quantitative survey of 470 professors, highlighting strong disagreements on the truth of 10 controversial conclusions. Some professors were 100% certain of the truth of these conclusions, while others were 100% certain of their falsehood. Professors with higher confidence in the truth of these conclusions reported more self-censorship, potentially biasing perceptions of scientific consensus. Most professors feared social sanctions for expressing their empirical beliefs. Tenured and untenured professors reported similar levels of self-censorship and fear of consequences, including the risk of being fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship or punishing peers based on moral concerns about research conclusions and expressed contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. The study found that while there are disagreements among psychology professors, there is also agreement on certain normative views, such as the idea that harm concerns are not a legitimate reason to suppress research. The study highlights the tension between academic freedom and morally responsible science, noting that some scholars consider actions like suppressing scholarship as illegitimate censorship. The research also found that professors' beliefs and self-censorship varied by gender, ideology, and age. Female professors were more left-leaning and younger than male professors, and both genders showed differences in their views on controversial research. The study found that professors generally believed that only compelling evidence of harm justifies the suppression of research. The study also found that professors generally supported normal scientific criticism but were less supportive of other forms of punishment against scholars who draw controversial conclusions. The study concludes that there is no consensus on the accuracy of controversial empirical conclusions or the optimal norms and policies for science, but it provides an empirical context for ongoing discussions.A study of U.S. psychology professors reveals significant disagreement on controversial research conclusions and normative preferences regarding how such research should be treated. In 2021, qualitative interviews with 41 professors generated a quantitative survey of 470 professors, highlighting strong disagreements on the truth of 10 controversial conclusions. Some professors were 100% certain of the truth of these conclusions, while others were 100% certain of their falsehood. Professors with higher confidence in the truth of these conclusions reported more self-censorship, potentially biasing perceptions of scientific consensus. Most professors feared social sanctions for expressing their empirical beliefs. Tenured and untenured professors reported similar levels of self-censorship and fear of consequences, including the risk of being fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship or punishing peers based on moral concerns about research conclusions and expressed contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. The study found that while there are disagreements among psychology professors, there is also agreement on certain normative views, such as the idea that harm concerns are not a legitimate reason to suppress research. The study highlights the tension between academic freedom and morally responsible science, noting that some scholars consider actions like suppressing scholarship as illegitimate censorship. The research also found that professors' beliefs and self-censorship varied by gender, ideology, and age. Female professors were more left-leaning and younger than male professors, and both genders showed differences in their views on controversial research. The study found that professors generally believed that only compelling evidence of harm justifies the suppression of research. The study also found that professors generally supported normal scientific criticism but were less supportive of other forms of punishment against scholars who draw controversial conclusions. The study concludes that there is no consensus on the accuracy of controversial empirical conclusions or the optimal norms and policies for science, but it provides an empirical context for ongoing discussions.