Your reply is an extremely poor attempt to downplay this. This statement reads like it was lifted from an undergrad essay in a 'critical theory' course. There i

Your reply is an extremely poor attempt to downplay this. This statement reads like it was lifted from an undergrad essay in a 'critical theory' course. There is so much written but so little said explicitly by design. The purpose of the statement is to announce the intent to stifle academic inquiry into areas which a fringe of people believe harmful. In such cases that harm is disputed, will Nature, by its own guidelines even be able to publish research that contradicts the claim of harm? Does that not cause more harm even if true? If you don't see what this is you are either sympathetic to this particular ideology or simply naive. Instead of attempting to dismiss criticism by invoking vivisection, which is unaffected by this policy change, why not provide some examples of immoral research that is currently being published that this policy will prevent.