21–29 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I love Nature's articles, but people won't forget what happened during COVID. And what does what happened during COVID have to do with Nature?
Nothing. And that's bad enough in itself for the worst years of many people's lives.
The worst years of many people’s lives so far. Because the next few years are probably going to be a lot worse.
This is the most problematic part to me: "He went on to say that "unless these journals change dramatically," the federal government would "stop NIH scientists from publishing there" and create "in-house" journals instead." This isn't about Nature. It's about the idea of subjecting your research to outside peer review of any kind. They're objecting to the idea of submitting their research to any outside standards.
If you've ever talked to one of these people about contrails, or whether evolution is real or not, or ghosts, or any number of boneheaded nonsense, you will eventually realize just how hopeless it is to expect them to ever be able to use logic. You might as well be teaching your dog to talk.
This is the most problematic part to me: "He went on to say that "unless these journals change dramatically," the federal government would "stop NIH scientists from publishing there" and create "in-house" journals instead." This isn't about Nature. It's about the idea of subjecting your research to outside peer review of any kind. They're objecting to the idea of submitting their research to any outside standards.
While I do agree that there are some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, given there has been proof of enough high profile researchers publishing using false or fabricated data, though I'm not sure about this particular one to be fair - I do not like the against science as a whole messaging. This administration is pushing anti-science as a whole which is going to do irreparable…
"Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument. It doesn't distinguish between the scientific method, journals, and institutions. If someone has the opinion that the scientific method is great, but the current incentives at journals and institutions lead to poor practice of it too often, is that "anti-science?"
After three decades in academia, I've seen firsthand how systemic issues plague research integrity - from selective data presentation to outright fabrication. While these problems absolutely need addressing, this current approach misses the mark entirely. We require measured, structural reforms rather than reactionary measures that risk throwing out legitimate science with the bad.
Making fixation on research, academia and science is typical retard behavior. As functioning society (human in general) WE should have ZERO tolerance toward this behavior and RFK Jr kinds should be ignored, he doesn't deserve to be heard, he have ZERO qualification whatsoever (same goes to 90% of this administration).
My doubt is if other regions will take the lead like the arab world did during the middle ages or if the whole world will fall under this.
There is a dispute going on where the NIH wants papers publicly available:
>New NIH Public Access Policy goes into effect TODAY! Research accepted for publication on July 1, 2025, must be publicly available as soon as it is published.
and
>Nature-Springer and Elsevier already have stated their intent to charge new fees to comply with the new NIH policy (a fee of $12,690.00 per paper for Nature). https://x.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1940156677501726959
While I do agree that there are some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, given there has been proof of enough high profile researchers publishing using false or fabricated data, though I'm not sure about this particular one to be fair - I do not like the against science as a whole messaging. This administration is pushing anti-science as a whole which is going to do irreparable…
"Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument. It doesn't distinguish between the scientific method, journals, and institutions. If someone has the opinion that the scientific method is great, but the current incentives at journals and institutions lead to poor practice of it too often, is that "anti-science?"
I agree, generally. However RFK Jr. and this administration are explicitly anti-science. If that seems extreme it's because it is - these are extremist ideologues.