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 i

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).