It’s interesting how scientific journals are emerging as a source of information and ethical discussion (as they were originally) after being seen as transcript

It’s interesting how scientific journals are emerging as a source of information and ethical discussion (as they were originally) after being seen as transcripts of any scientifically relevant observation with a p-value below .05 More interesting is the tone of that article: not discussing, or looking at arguments but plainly stating that a crime is being committed at scale and condemning it the clearest way it can: publishing detailed evidence and stating a new editorial policy. The editorial policy feels strangely inadequate to the for-profit genocide that they describe but that’s the extend of the authority of the committee.