Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment (N = 801; 32,040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48% in OpenAlex and 32% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database r = 0.96, p < 10^-8). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; r = 0.77-0.84), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also saw the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English and non-English authors. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift -0.18 Likert units, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.14]; d_z = -0.28, p < 10^-20), funding willingness (d_z = -0.12) and policy support (d_z = -0.08), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency (d_z = +0.07). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

翻译：暂无翻译