351–360 of 883 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. And yes that's all really bad and non-secular and society will be harmed because people, even with the best intentions, will try to filter facts. The two terminology clarifications they make I don't mind though: sex vs gender and race vs biological lineage. I think society would be better off with very clear and precise usage of those terms. I mentally fli…
>Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. At a practical level, it's very enforceable. You just setup a a "science-must-respect-dignity-of-all-humans" committee at every major publication and university, and just block any violating papers from publication, prevent grants from going to 'bad' research and don't hire anyone who does subscribe to your orthodoxy. We're well on our way to do that (if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a pretty unreasonable comparison. There's a difference between religious dogma which makes claims about reality, and norms or ethics. Discrimination and harm as discussed in this document isn't about factual findings, but is about "superiority or inferiority of one human group over another" (i.e. a value judgement), "the rights and dignities of an individual or human group" (i.e. social norms and conve…
But that’s not what the quoted text is saying. It’s saying research whose outcomes could be “harmful” (where the definition of “harmful” is very broad) may have harms that “outweigh” the benefits… implying it shouldn’t be done. And now you’ve attached a high leverage handle to research allocation/gatekeeping and put it in deeply politicized hands that don’t care about the research.
It's the editorial board of a journal. Gatekeeping published research is literally their job, always has been. And I think it's fair to conclude from their vocation that they care more about the research and less about the politics than all the non-scientists who've chimed in to express disagreement with the politics of their decision...
Comparing an article outlining bunch of guidelines about language and requests to be careful and clear about sampling to the medieval Catholic Church is no more reasonable than comparing everyone decrying the concept of ethical barriers to research to Dr Mengele.
It would be great if the author would provide example research which they think should not have been published under this new ethics guidance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is a lot more nuance than people admit. Lets take an example of we have a deadly disease spreading through the population (much more deadly than covid) . Let's say a scientist finds out that the disease is primarily (exclusively) spread by red haired people. Should they just publish the finding? The fact becoming openly known might lead to mobs of people chasing red hairs and locking them up or even lyn…
Science brings facts. Politics deals with how we use those facts. If the fact brought about by science leads one group of people to kill another, we are faced with a political decision. Do we allow this or do we stand against it. We need the separation of science and politics. Otherwise, important facts will be politically suppressed and falsehoods will be presented as truth for political gain. It’s a story as old as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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? Don't worry, it says in the guidelines that race and ethnicity aren't real: > Race…
To do you the favor, as ashkenazi jew (at higher risk for a number of different genetic illnesses) nothing about my understanding of this is predicated upon the concept of a race. That there is a genetically distinct haplotype group that corresponds to many folk that share these traits with me, is sufficient. By the way, I don't think "African descent" is a race by any means of my understanding of the word...
It's a broad, vague category, that is nonetheless sometimes still useful. Just like race. We don't pretend that Ashkenazi Jews don't exist, or are verboten from polite discussion because they are a "social construct."
> By the way, I don't think "African descent" is a race by any means of my understanding of the word...
Well, yeah. I pulled my punches there. I should have just said "black people", but even I felt squeamish about it. A great example of how this stuff confuses language and makes science harder.
[1] https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/genetics-di...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, and it could then be challenged in court. And depending on the alignment of the courts, they might find in favor of the policy, setting a precedent for future law. Do you really not understand how things work in this country?
I do, and I understand that something this blatantly unconstitutional (and widespread enough to be notable) would get slapped down by the courts super hard before being actually acted on. Do you understand how things work in this country? When's the last time there was a statewide policy like this that explicitly targeted people of one particular religion? Especially kids going to state schools?
I genuinely can't tell if you're being disingenuous here. I'm not personally stressed about the rights of LDS people, but the procedural scenario I'm describing isn't even remotely far-fetched.
Quoted post unavailable.
> People keep asking about examples of work that exemplifies "potential harms [that] outweigh the benefit of publication." How about large scale human vivisection? People are asking for example of something this particular set of rules would prevent. An example that's already illegal in the most extreme sense of the word doesn't convince anyone. This is a straw man. The only people who won't see it as such are those…
Unit 731 is extreme but consider the many invasive and painful experiments still done on chimpanzees. At what point does the suffering of the animals outweigh the benefits of the study? Showing that the balance is on the side of the benefits is a basic part of getting any work approved at universities and research institutions. Nature is simply aggregating some of the ethical guidelines already present in many of these processes and proposing them as a broader and more inclusive structure.
I'm pro trans rights, pro LGBTQ, and also very much value free speech. There is a trend on the political left right now that basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence) >Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups >We commit to using this guidance cautiously and judiciously, consulting with ethics experts and advo…
> There is a trend on the political left right now that basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence) I must admit I have not seen an argument like this outside of a strawman characterization.
I suspect many of us have had this experience.