3 ms·

> take "inclusion", there's a lot of work showing that a more diverse, inclusive population leads to better results (in social siences etc.) so it's obvious for

by jwond 4y ago

> take "inclusion", there's a lot of work showing that a more diverse, inclusive population leads to better results (in social siences etc.) so it's obvious for me that people will use it more I imagine it would be difficult getting a paper published that shows otherwise since diversity, equity, and inclusion have seemingly become tantamount to unquestionable religious dogma. For example, you have the Biden administration publishing this blatantly contradictory guidance: > The scientific integrity principles and best practices identified in the report aim to ensure that science is conducted, managed, communicated, and used in ways that preserve its accuracy and objectivity and protect it from suppression, manipulation, and inappropriate influence—including political interference. > > […] > > Scientific integrity policies should be modernized to address important, emergent issues of our time. They must advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/01/11/white-house-office-of-science-technology-policy-releases-scientific-integrity-task-force-report/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/01/11/whit... Then you have Nature with this “ethics guidance” that seem to suggest it would be considered unethical to publish a study that challenges the present narrative of diversity, equity, and inclusion: > Academic content that […] promotes privileged, exclusionary perspectives raises ethics concerns that may require revisions or supersede the value of publication. > Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society. With this guidance, we take a step towards countering this. > Consideration of risks and benefits (above and beyond any institutional ethics review) underlies the editorial process of all forms of scholarly communication in our publications. Editors consider harms that might result from the publication of a piece of scholarly communication, may seek external guidance on such potential risks of harm as part of the editorial process, and in cases of substantial risk of harm that outweighs any potential benefits, may decline publication (or correct, retract, remove or otherwise amend already published content). > Regardless of content type (research, review or opinion) and, for research, regardless of whether a research project was reviewed and approved by appropriate ethics specialists, editors may raise with the authors concerns regarding potentially sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ assumptions, implications or speech in their submission; engage external ethics experts to provide input on such issues as part of the peer review process; or request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication) sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ content https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2

kgarten 4y ago
Again, it's in the discretion of the editor. There has been and still is a lot of sexist, misogynistic, and racist stuff published in the past and today ... horrible stuff. So you want people to continue publish racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications? Want to understand what your goal is here. I learned in my methodology class, if you didn't do a controlled experiment it's not possible to claim causation (that didn't stop people in the sciences to put out the wildest claims ... for example in genetics it would be pretty unethical to do a controlled experiment). My point: in the past it was worse in terms of scientific integrity, racism, sexism (e.g. 60s versus now) etc. Seeing also the progression of the sciences. Show the opposite if you can. There were scientific trials on poor and black people in the US without informed consent, because they were seen as lesser ... there were horrendous crimes against humanity done in the name of science. I think today it's better, yet you seem to disagree :)
- jwond 4y ago
  > So you want people to continue publish racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications? Want to understand what your goal is here. "racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications" is very broad and vague and I don't trust that my understanding of what qualifies as such is the same as that of the editors. My concern is that legitimate science will be suppressed in the name of "diversity, equity, and inclusion". > There were scientific trials on poor and black people in the US without informed consent, because they were seen as lesser ... there were horrendous crimes against humanity done in the name of science. I think today it's better, yet you seem to disagree :) I agree that performing trials on people without informed consent is unacceptable and should be prevented. Your attempt to conflate legitimate studies that may challenge the narrative of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" with inhumane trials performed without informed consent is fallacious.
  - kgarten 4y ago
    My point: There was and there still is a lot of racist, misogynistic stuff published in the past and today. The trials were just an example of that: assuming informed consent does not apply to Black people is racist, isn’t it? If you don’t believe me that race science is still publishable, there’s the Mankind Quarterly peddling race science since 1960. Do I want to see these papers in Nature? No! You want to? > My concern is that legitimate science will be suppressed in the name of "diversity, equity, and inclusion". Ok, valid concern. I am concerned that scientific publications due to bad generalizations support racist ideology as they did in the past. I can show you that racist stuff is still published in academic journals (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind\_Quarterly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind\_Quarterly ). Can you show me where legitimate papers with decent studies (and decent methodology) are suppressed and not published? There are a lot of people screaming "We are silenced by the establishment." However, if you look at their work, it's often flawed and horribly wrong (in terms of methodology). Like I pointed out about the Bell Curve in another thread. I read the Nature editor notes, as "be careful with your assumptions as we cannot explore and know some causation as controlled experiments in those fields would be unethical." especially highlighting the problems from the past (oh man... there are so many horrible sexist and racist papers published).

by jwond 4y ago

kgarten 4y ago

Again, it's in the discretion of the editor. There has been and still is a lot of sexist, misogynistic, and racist stuff published in the past and today ... horrible stuff. So you want people to continue publish racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications? Want to understand what your goal is here. I learned in my methodology class, if you didn't do a controlled experiment it's not possible to claim causation (that didn't stop people in the sciences to put out the wildest claims ... for example in genetics it would be pretty unethical to do a controlled experiment). My point: in the past it was worse in terms of scientific integrity, racism, sexism (e.g. 60s versus now) etc. Seeing also the progression of the sciences. Show the opposite if you can. There were scientific trials on poor and black people in the US without informed consent, because they were seen as lesser ... there were horrendous crimes against humanity done in the name of science. I think today it's better, yet you seem to disagree :)

jwond 4y ago
> So you want people to continue publish racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications? Want to understand what your goal is here. "racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications" is very broad and vague and I don't trust that my understanding of what qualifies as such is the same as that of the editors. My concern is that legitimate science will be suppressed in the name of "diversity, equity, and inclusion". > There were scientific trials on poor and black people in the US without informed consent, because they were seen as lesser ... there were horrendous crimes against humanity done in the name of science. I think today it's better, yet you seem to disagree :) I agree that performing trials on people without informed consent is unacceptable and should be prevented. Your attempt to conflate legitimate studies that may challenge the narrative of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" with inhumane trials performed without informed consent is fallacious.
- kgarten 4y ago
  My point: There was and there still is a lot of racist, misogynistic stuff published in the past and today. The trials were just an example of that: assuming informed consent does not apply to Black people is racist, isn’t it? If you don’t believe me that race science is still publishable, there’s the Mankind Quarterly peddling race science since 1960. Do I want to see these papers in Nature? No! You want to? > My concern is that legitimate science will be suppressed in the name of "diversity, equity, and inclusion". Ok, valid concern. I am concerned that scientific publications due to bad generalizations support racist ideology as they did in the past. I can show you that racist stuff is still published in academic journals (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind\_Quarterly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind\_Quarterly ). Can you show me where legitimate papers with decent studies (and decent methodology) are suppressed and not published? There are a lot of people screaming "We are silenced by the establishment." However, if you look at their work, it's often flawed and horribly wrong (in terms of methodology). Like I pointed out about the Bell Curve in another thread. I read the Nature editor notes, as "be careful with your assumptions as we cannot explore and know some causation as controlled experiments in those fields would be unethical." especially highlighting the problems from the past (oh man... there are so many horrible sexist and racist papers published).