3 ms·

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? Ar

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-...

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-...