I think that specific quote is actually ambiguous, as 'research' doesn't make a clear separation between the actual investigation and evidence vs the researcher

I think that specific quote is actually ambiguous, as 'research' doesn't make a clear separation between the actual investigation and evidence vs the researcher's presentation of them. I think your characterization (about advocating that some research itself should not be done) is not actually what the document says. So far as I can see, it's focused on _publication_ of particular _content_ (read: text) describing research. > In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication. > editors reserve the right to request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication) So far as I can see, they're not advocating for new restrictions on what research ethically can be done, but they're saying that publication can on its own cause harms. And they seem to be focused on how findings are framed and communicated, rather than the objective content of the findings, with the implication that a suitably written article using respectful language would be considered publishable. > authors should use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language in their submitted manuscripts. > Biomedical studies should not conflate genetic ancestry (a biological construct) and race/ethnicity (sociopolitical constructs) > Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. So far as I can tell, e.g. one could study sex-linked difference in brain development, and find that one group is faster/more accurate/whatever on some task with subjects in an lab conditions, and so long as one (a) consistently distinguishes whether one is referring to sex or gender and (b) uses respectful and non-stigmatizing language, it would not be found to be unpublishable on these ethical grounds. But if in a conclusion section after having looked at sex differences, one throws out a broad gender stereotype "..and this validates the common belief that women are terrible at X", editors are entirely within their rights to insist on a modification. This seems entirely reasonable, and is a kind of natural cover-your-ass stance for the modern era, where if they let through some great, ground-breaking research with a single racist or misogynist or homophobic statement tacked in somewhere, inevitably that part will be trotted out by trolls and politicians insisting that their weird stance is backed by science because of one line in a Nature article they didn't actually read.