5 ms·

Things like this makes me ashamed to have my name on papers in Nature. First, lets set aside the hypocrisy of a non open access journal publishing this[1]. (Wh

Things like this makes me ashamed to have my name on papers in Nature. First, lets set aside the hypocrisy of a non open access journal publishing this[1]. (What happens if Sacha wants to inform her self by reading a few old nature papers?) I am pro vaccine but far too many doctors have this fantasy that they should have unlimited control and articles like this just serve to validate that view point. Medicine is an inexact and continually evolving science and a good doctor should always be willing to talk over the options with you and engage with you on a level beyond just parroting the current recommendations. As someone who is one of the people contributing to the body of often-vague statistics we call medicine it is continuously annoying to have to get doctors to explain their (often subjective) judgment calls they are making and actually present their reasoning analytically. Additionally, many doctors choose to forgo recommended treatments themselves due to side effects [2]. [1] In fact you can pay extra to make your nature paper open access but it is by no means fully open access. [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/your-money/how-doctors-die.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/your-money/how-doctors-die...

ISL 12y ago
This is a Nature Future, the story printed at the back of the magazine as food for thought. Perhaps only twenty percent of them present a future in which we'd like to live. If the Future has driven HN to active discussion of an ethical topic, then it has succeeded in its purpose. Unlike most of Nature, the Futures are free to read (and ~10% of them are compelling enough to make reading them all worthwhile). (just scroll down to see the complete archive) http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/arts/futures/ http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/arts/futures/
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  I posted this Mitchell and Webb sketch further down, as an example of how to do this well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA Now reflect on your reaction to that piece. Even when on the side of the trader, it is still funny. You can be a trader and find that funny. This is because of how the characters are treated in the piece. Essentially, it is ridiculing ideas while remaining sympathetic to the character that holds them, which is difficult to do well, but makes for a much more persuasive piece of satire that will be appreciated by a wider range of people. The piece in Nature however is just preaching to the converted, and doing it in a way that will just entrench the views of anyone who identifies with the mother. Frankly, if they want to publish satirical sci-fi, they should pay someone who can do it well rather than embarrassing themselves like this. It reads like a teenage first attempt at short-story writing.
api 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Contamination_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Contamination_co... I'm not at all anti-vaccination, but I am anti-authoritarian and anti-closed-science. People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies. The SV40 contamination turned out to not be that serious, but it was a close call. Had SV40 been potently carcinogenic, we would have had a medieval plague of cancer. In the end it reduces to the problem of freedom and open society: freedom means tolerating people being idiots. Freedom means it's okay for the Ku Klux Klan to mail me literature. It means it's okay for people to question vaccination because some stupid celebrity told them it caused their son's autism. It means it's okay for people to put pink plastic flamingos on their lawns. The alternative is a closed, authoritarian society.
- mpweiher 12y ago
  "People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies." Right, and the doctor was trying to give her that knowledge, and she refused.
  - crpatino 12y ago
    That does not sound like most doctors I have met. Typical doctor's attitude is: "Look this white coat, that I happen to have and you don't? It means even if I tried to explain to you all the implications you are not smart enough to understand. So shut up and do as I say, I have more important things to do!" Edit: I originally wrote "black coat" instead of "white coat". There must be some nasty stuff hidden in my brain's crawl spaces.
- cstross 12y ago
  Viral pandemics do not respect your personal boundaries: your "right to be an idiot" over vaccination may not be intended to result in deaths, but that's what will happen if we indulge such beliefs until herd immunity is lost. We need to draw a distinction between idiotic behavior with no externalities -- side-effects for others -- and idiotic behavior that can damage third parties. Upshot: there's no simple dichotomy between an open society and an authoritarian one.
- 12y ago
kordless 12y ago
It's called a parable. The universe allows them, and evidently so does Nature. Why would you be ashamed of publishing a paper you worked hard on anywhere? Are you implying you believe others would be judgemental of you because the magazine ran a parable that taught a lesson about dismissal of a concept without consideration?
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
  It makes Nature look overzealous, while failing to teach the lesson. You can find less heavy handed parables in the bible. The dystopia isn't that exciting either.
  - kordless 12y ago
    I agree the dystopia isn't exciting, but I don't think I can speak for whether Nature was overzealous or not. Only they could do that. The decision to not inform yourself and your family about factual information that is related to the well being of the family has historically been frowned upon. We have taken action on matters like this by passing laws that state parents must afford their children a basic right to information as it is presented by society. Schools. Given the Internet is causing a huge surge in the amount of information available for consumption (ignoring the opinionated bits), one would assume there wouldn't need to be laws in place to force parents to this decision. It simply takes care of itself because the child has nearly unfettered access to the information. Granted it could be curated better, but whatever. The real issue then becomes ensuring this information is readily available to anyone that desires it. This desired outcome is only be affected by something along the lines of government (or terrorist) sponsored censorship and the current spat of anti-net neutrality arguments presented by big business. Fuck you Verizon. The logical conclusion this is why they are so horribly insidious to society as a whole. The net effect of anti net-neutrality arguments only serves to limit the spread of information .
- micro_cam 12y ago
  I said I was setting aside open access issues but I guess they do play into my reasoning. I want anyone with interest to have access to scientific results be they a garage biohacker, a stay-at-home mom trying to make sense of a 23 and me result or an MD PHD. Nature already has an image problem [1] and the idea that they would use such a high profile venue to publish this seems silly even if it wasn't so alienating to people we need to be reaching out too. It just contributes to the distorted view of science and scientists that high profile journals are creating. [1]http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-...
mpweiher 12y ago
"Medicine is an inexact and continually evolving science and a good doctor should always be willing to talk over the options with you and engage with you on a level beyond just parroting the current recommendations." Exactly. The doctor tried to have that discussion, and tried to explain the pros and cons. Using a leaflet is a good starter and basis for discussion, because it contains those facts and pros/cons. Much better than just making things up as you go. Sacha refused to engage, refused to be informed, refused to inform herself, instead wanting a simplistic black/white assurance that this would not harm her children, an assurance which is not possible given the facts. The facts that Sacha did not wish to be informed about.
robotresearcher 12y ago
> What happens if Sacha wants to inform her self by reading a few old nature papers? She can go to pretty much any reference library in the world. I'm all for open access but let's not over-do it.

ISL 12y ago

This is a Nature Future, the story printed at the back of the magazine as food for thought. Perhaps only twenty percent of them present a future in which we'd like to live. If the Future has driven HN to active discussion of an ethical topic, then it has succeeded in its purpose. Unlike most of Nature, the Futures are free to read (and ~10% of them are compelling enough to make reading them all worthwhile). (just scroll down to see the complete archive) http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/arts/futures/ http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/arts/futures/

lotsofmangos 12y ago
I posted this Mitchell and Webb sketch further down, as an example of how to do this well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA Now reflect on your reaction to that piece. Even when on the side of the trader, it is still funny. You can be a trader and find that funny. This is because of how the characters are treated in the piece. Essentially, it is ridiculing ideas while remaining sympathetic to the character that holds them, which is difficult to do well, but makes for a much more persuasive piece of satire that will be appreciated by a wider range of people. The piece in Nature however is just preaching to the converted, and doing it in a way that will just entrench the views of anyone who identifies with the mother. Frankly, if they want to publish satirical sci-fi, they should pay someone who can do it well rather than embarrassing themselves like this. It reads like a teenage first attempt at short-story writing.

api 12y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Contamination_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Contamination_co... I'm not at all anti-vaccination, but I am anti-authoritarian and anti-closed-science. People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies. The SV40 contamination turned out to not be that serious, but it was a close call. Had SV40 been potently carcinogenic, we would have had a medieval plague of cancer. In the end it reduces to the problem of freedom and open society: freedom means tolerating people being idiots. Freedom means it's okay for the Ku Klux Klan to mail me literature. It means it's okay for people to question vaccination because some stupid celebrity told them it caused their son's autism. It means it's okay for people to put pink plastic flamingos on their lawns. The alternative is a closed, authoritarian society.

mpweiher 12y ago
"People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies." Right, and the doctor was trying to give her that knowledge, and she refused.
- crpatino 12y ago
  That does not sound like most doctors I have met. Typical doctor's attitude is: "Look this white coat, that I happen to have and you don't? It means even if I tried to explain to you all the implications you are not smart enough to understand. So shut up and do as I say, I have more important things to do!" Edit: I originally wrote "black coat" instead of "white coat". There must be some nasty stuff hidden in my brain's crawl spaces.
cstross 12y ago
Viral pandemics do not respect your personal boundaries: your "right to be an idiot" over vaccination may not be intended to result in deaths, but that's what will happen if we indulge such beliefs until herd immunity is lost. We need to draw a distinction between idiotic behavior with no externalities -- side-effects for others -- and idiotic behavior that can damage third parties. Upshot: there's no simple dichotomy between an open society and an authoritarian one.
12y ago

kordless 12y ago

It's called a parable. The universe allows them, and evidently so does Nature. Why would you be ashamed of publishing a paper you worked hard on anywhere? Are you implying you believe others would be judgemental of you because the magazine ran a parable that taught a lesson about dismissal of a concept without consideration?

0xdeadbeefbabe 12y ago
It makes Nature look overzealous, while failing to teach the lesson. You can find less heavy handed parables in the bible. The dystopia isn't that exciting either.
- kordless 12y ago
  I agree the dystopia isn't exciting, but I don't think I can speak for whether Nature was overzealous or not. Only they could do that. The decision to not inform yourself and your family about factual information that is related to the well being of the family has historically been frowned upon. We have taken action on matters like this by passing laws that state parents must afford their children a basic right to information as it is presented by society. Schools. Given the Internet is causing a huge surge in the amount of information available for consumption (ignoring the opinionated bits), one would assume there wouldn't need to be laws in place to force parents to this decision. It simply takes care of itself because the child has nearly unfettered access to the information. Granted it could be curated better, but whatever. The real issue then becomes ensuring this information is readily available to anyone that desires it. This desired outcome is only be affected by something along the lines of government (or terrorist) sponsored censorship and the current spat of anti-net neutrality arguments presented by big business. Fuck you Verizon. The logical conclusion this is why they are so horribly insidious to society as a whole. The net effect of anti net-neutrality arguments only serves to limit the spread of information .
micro_cam 12y ago
I said I was setting aside open access issues but I guess they do play into my reasoning. I want anyone with interest to have access to scientific results be they a garage biohacker, a stay-at-home mom trying to make sense of a 23 and me result or an MD PHD. Nature already has an image problem [1] and the idea that they would use such a high profile venue to publish this seems silly even if it wasn't so alienating to people we need to be reaching out too. It just contributes to the distorted view of science and scientists that high profile journals are creating. [1]http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-...

mpweiher 12y ago

"Medicine is an inexact and continually evolving science and a good doctor should always be willing to talk over the options with you and engage with you on a level beyond just parroting the current recommendations." Exactly. The doctor tried to have that discussion, and tried to explain the pros and cons. Using a leaflet is a good starter and basis for discussion, because it contains those facts and pros/cons. Much better than just making things up as you go. Sacha refused to engage, refused to be informed, refused to inform herself, instead wanting a simplistic black/white assurance that this would not harm her children, an assurance which is not possible given the facts. The facts that Sacha did not wish to be informed about.

robotresearcher 12y ago

> What happens if Sacha wants to inform her self by reading a few old nature papers? She can go to pretty much any reference library in the world. I'm all for open access but let's not over-do it.