>disingenuous and ill-informed vitriol in this thread. "Why are people mad when I want to censor science and make it worship my false idol ?? it's so unfair"

>disingenuous and ill-informed vitriol in this thread. "Why are people mad when I want to censor science and make it worship my false idol ?? it's so unfair" >These guidelines are very like existing ethics guidelines found at universities and research institutions around the world Show me a respectable university that tells scientists to "Consult with advocacy groups" before they publish any results, and I will show you a university that used to be respectable but now isn't. >If that causes them to second guess whether the research they are conducting is worthwhile Ah yes, it's all them second-guessing themselves. This won't be used to censor scientists at all, those scientists will just, spontaneously, see the error of their bigoted and heretical science, and refuse to publish it by themselves. >How about large scale human vivisection? Nice try, but this is about research methodology. The posted censorship guidelines is dealing with the final results of research, the papers, not the used methodology. We had ethics board since the 1970s and 1980s, you're not inventing anything useful. It's amazing how desperate some people are to try to justify their nonsense.