4 ms·

While I do agree that there are some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, given there has been proof of enough high profil

While I do agree that there are some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, given there has been proof of enough high profile researchers publishing using false or fabricated data, though I'm not sure about this particular one to be fair - I do not like the against science as a whole messaging. This administration is pushing anti-science as a whole which is going to do irreparable harm to all well meaning scientists and those interested in these fields as a whole. And in the end the ones suffering will be us for years to come as we will have effectively stifled innovation, especially when it comes to health.

stogot 1y ago
I don’t see where it’s “science as a whole” but rather names specific (narrow) set of journals to cancel subscriptions because they are funded by big pharma or are too expensive. Seems more reasonable than your comment purports I recall reading about journal’s positive bias to only publish positive results of pharmaceutical drugs, but would not publish negative results in later years (when another researcher disproves it). This is bad science and bad for patients. This in addition to the downright fraud. I’m not a fan of this secretary’s approaches, but I’ve been hoping for 10 years someone would take a stand against predatory journal practices
hackingonempty 1y ago
> some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, [...], though I'm not sure about this particular one to be fair Nature is literally the worlds top scientific journal. This action by RFK/HHS is not in good faith.
JADev62096 1y ago
"Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument. It doesn't distinguish between the scientific method, journals, and institutions. If someone has the opinion that the scientific method is great, but the current incentives at journals and institutions lead to poor practice of it too often, is that "anti-science?"
- sophacles 1y ago
  They have attacked scientific method, institutions and journals though.
- const_cast 1y ago
  > "Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument. I agree, generally. However RFK Jr. and this administration are explicitly anti-science. If that seems extreme it's because it is - these are extremist ideologues.

stogot 1y ago

I don’t see where it’s “science as a whole” but rather names specific (narrow) set of journals to cancel subscriptions because they are funded by big pharma or are too expensive. Seems more reasonable than your comment purports I recall reading about journal’s positive bias to only publish positive results of pharmaceutical drugs, but would not publish negative results in later years (when another researcher disproves it). This is bad science and bad for patients. This in addition to the downright fraud. I’m not a fan of this secretary’s approaches, but I’ve been hoping for 10 years someone would take a stand against predatory journal practices

hackingonempty 1y ago

> some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, [...], though I'm not sure about this particular one to be fair Nature is literally the worlds top scientific journal. This action by RFK/HHS is not in good faith.

JADev62096 1y ago

"Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument. It doesn't distinguish between the scientific method, journals, and institutions. If someone has the opinion that the scientific method is great, but the current incentives at journals and institutions lead to poor practice of it too often, is that "anti-science?"

sophacles 1y ago
They have attacked scientific method, institutions and journals though.
const_cast 1y ago
> "Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument. I agree, generally. However RFK Jr. and this administration are explicitly anti-science. If that seems extreme it's because it is - these are extremist ideologues.