Developmental plasticity is a widespread property of living organisms, but different individuals in the same species can vary greatly in how susceptible they are to environmental influences. In humans, research has sought to link variation in plasticity to physiological traits such as stress reactivity, exposure to prenatal stress-related hormones such as cortisol, and specific genes involved in major neurobiological pathways. However, the determinants of individual differences in plasticity are still poorly understood. Here we present the novel hypothesis that, in both sexes, higher exposure to androgens during prenatal and early postnatal life should lead to increased plasticity in traits that display greater male variability (i.e., a majority of physical and behavioral traits). First, we review evidence of greater phenotypic variation and higher susceptibility to environmental factors in males; we then consider evolutionary models that explain greater male variability and plasticity as a result of sexual selection. These empirical and theoretical strands converge on the hypothesis that androgens may promote developmental plasticity, at least for traits that show greater male variability. We discuss a number of potential mechanisms that may mediate this effect (including upregulation of neural plasticity), and address the question of whether androgen-induced plasticity is likely to be adaptive or maladaptive. We conclude by offering suggestions for future studies in this area, and considering some research designs that could be used to empirically test our hypothesis.

Science is among humanitys greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.