31–40 of 883 posts
This is so general that its either very obvious or nonsense. They should include examples of what they consider "harmful science".
I posted this to garner some discussion but wanted to be clear it's not an endorsement. The new IRB ethics guidelines Nature is pushing here is absurd and would be a disaster in my opinion.
How do you effectively discuss, and communicate, that for example sickle cell anaemia or lactose intolerance affects people of African descent, or skin cancer is prevalent in people of European ancestry? And that poor and badly educated people are susceptible to bad diets, lifestyles and medical issues that are a consequence of that?
> harms arising from manuscripts
I'm pretty sure the readership for papers in Nature is pretty low, and already read by a target audience of academics that already use a scientific dialect that doesn't cause 'offense'. Scientific language is terse and unambiguous for a reason. Efficient and precise transfer of ideas. "Go the shops and get a loaf of bread. If there are eggs, get a dozen".
"Offense" in 2022 is the social construct here. Not age, or disease, or origin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. Do these people think there are motherfucking X-Men living among us who we want to save from stigma? These kinds of statements read like the authors don…
> Do these people think there are motherfucking X-Men living among us In fact, there are. You know, we all have genetic differences, and most studies do not account for these genetic differences. So a medicine that helps one person might cause drug induced Lupus in another. Lithium is a good example of this stigma. I have Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder and Lithium is constantly forces on me even though it does not…
Science must only be objective. Science should not care one whit about humans or what we want/think/feel. We should respect people, there's a huge difference. As far as I'm concerned, this is the final nail in the coffin for nature magazine or whatever they call themselves now. This entire blog post is them contradicting themselves repeatedly.
What do you think happened in Nazi Germany?