It is regrettable but true that researchers have used and abused science to justify racist beliefs and practices. As previous editorials have acknowledged, Nature has played its part in perpetuating racism — and has now pledged to play its part in tackling it, together with colleagues in the research community.They are saying that truths about race and sex have the potential to cause harm, so they won't publish them anymore.
As part of this pledge, Nature and the Nature Portfolio journals are updating our advice to authors on reporting research that involves race, ethnicity and other socially constructed characteristics (see go.nature.com/3mtobwx). Specifically, we’re asking that authors exercise care and consideration so that the highest standards of rigour are applied where these attributes are found to be an explanation for an outcome or conclusion. This is part of our ongoing updates to guidance asking authors to describe how demographic characteristics, including sex and gender, are considered in the design of studies — and, more broadly, to consider the research’s potential to cause harm.
Here is an example of what they will not publish:
New data from the American Bar Association has shown that the gap in bar pass rates between white and minority law graduates has widened for the second year. The data showed that 83% of white test takers passed their bar exam on their first attempt, compared to 57% of Black examinees – a difference of 26 percentage points. This gap increased from 24 percentage points in 2021. The disparity also held for Hispanic and Asian test takers, with 69% and 75% first-time pass rates, respectively. The gap with white examinees grew from 13 percentage points to 14 for Hispanic test takers and six percentage points to 8 for Asian test takers.
It sounds like a very woke virtue signaling HR department is what is actually running Nature and writing it's very unscientific sounding 'mission statements'.
I'm not sure why 'scientists' (and I do use the term loosely) have determined that cancelling the freedom to say what you think is such a great way to advance science and cure the world of its ills, except by authoritative thought control and suppression. Controlling what people say is not actually about controlling words, it's about controlling what people think.
My father once lived in such a 'thought controlled' society, he told me the government replaced the fact that some people were being offended by what was said with everyone being afraid to say anything, even the obvious, and that it really sucked.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
― George Orwell, 1984
It also sucks that George Orwell knew exactly what blueprint would be used to destroy us, and that our present day ever mindful 'scientists' think it's a great idea.
If anyone ever hands you a glass of poisoned Kool-Aid to drink,
Merely take a step back, smile, and say 'Please, you first'.
Their reaction should tell you everything you need to know.
Post a Comment