I feel like you didn't read my comment. It contained: > Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary. Which is in dire

I feel like you didn't read my comment. It contained: > Favoring research of understudied populations makes a lot of sense and is necessary. Which is in direct agreement with what you wrote in response. > Favoring researchers based on their own personal diversity metrics is controversial. But it also acknowledges there are aspects others may find controversial. The policy extends beyond sample selection and populations addressed in research, and e.g. favors researchers from diverse backgrounds. Personally, I think this is useful (more perspectives good; more inclusion in science good)-- within reason. > Favoring research whose findings support specific diversity-related desired outcomes is dangerous (and the policy may do this in practice). And it points out that if interpretation of the policy extends too far, that by only allowing certain types of outcome to publish, it could create distortions. The worry is that the latter criteria in the policy could reach here.