> a journal has a great ethical responsibility for the impact of what it publishes and is within its rights to say "no" on that basis. No. This is really hilar

> a journal has a great ethical responsibility for the impact of what it publishes and is within its rights to say "no" on that basis. No. This is really hilarious, but really though, No. The whole point of science is no content-related norms. You can put content-related norms wherever you want. You can put them in your useless HR departments, you can put them in the brainwashing (uh, ahem, "orientation") of new hires. But the moment you start saying "All papers dealing with topic X are refused, regardless of supporting evidence or explanatory\predictive power" then you're literally not doing science. You're playing dress up. Every single philosophy of science from pre-Popper onwards is very clear that good science doesn't give a single shit about the moral content of an idea and how politically-correct it is, only how well supported it is and how elegantly it explains existing data and how accurately it predicts new data. Evolution says you're no better and no worse than rats, who are also your distant cousins btw, neuroscience says that what we call "you" is really just a bunch of electrochemistry that anybody can learn to manipulate and push to do things. Science doesn't give a shit about your panic that somebody can "misinterpret" those results, that's your problem, stop being lazy and find other solutions to it, don't censor science.