“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”(nature.com)
nature.com
“Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2
812 comments
"Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic."
If it's good research, then it shouldn't have any of these biases. Stigmatization and restrictions of rights is a policy issue. Science is not policy. I think we need to promote this separation more. Too often I see "but the study says this thing". Sure, that may be a scientific fact, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing for society, or even that it provides a complete picture of the issue.
If it's good research, then it shouldn't have any of these biases. Stigmatization and restrictions of rights is a policy issue. Science is not policy. I think we need to promote this separation more. Too often I see "but the study says this thing". Sure, that may be a scientific fact, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing for society, or even that it provides a complete picture of the issue.
I posted this to garner some discussion but wanted to be clear it's not an endorsement. The new IRB ethics guidelines Nature is pushing here is absurd and would be a disaster in my opinion.
Most of this seems wildly unenforceable at a practical level. And yes that's all really bad and non-secular and society will be harmed because people, even with the best intentions, will try to filter facts. The two terminology clarifications they make I don't mind though: sex vs gender and race vs biological lineage. I think society would be better off with very clear and precise usage of those terms.
I mentally flip a table every time I hear someone colloquially say "sex is a social construct" (they mean gender) or get hesitant about describing the sex of their gestating baby because they want to leave it ambiguous or on the flip side want to have a "gender reveal" party. People care about the sex of your baby, not their gender. And it's totally fair to study the effects of biological lineage on modern humans instead of treating all humans as the same biological profile or reducing the question to tribally relevant characteristics like skin color (race is a social construct, but biological lineage is not).
Consequently this is why the zeitgeist is so weird. Everything is about e.g. racial identity but race is a social construct that by definition you can't apply based on biological attributes (just like gender) so... ... ??? ...
I mentally flip a table every time I hear someone colloquially say "sex is a social construct" (they mean gender) or get hesitant about describing the sex of their gestating baby because they want to leave it ambiguous or on the flip side want to have a "gender reveal" party. People care about the sex of your baby, not their gender. And it's totally fair to study the effects of biological lineage on modern humans instead of treating all humans as the same biological profile or reducing the question to tribally relevant characteristics like skin color (race is a social construct, but biological lineage is not).
Consequently this is why the zeitgeist is so weird. Everything is about e.g. racial identity but race is a social construct that by definition you can't apply based on biological attributes (just like gender) so... ... ??? ...
"Science", such is my understanding, is a rigorous process to get to the truth of a situation.
As such, "Science" has no overlap with concepts such as respect, dignity, or rights. Science exists outside of those concepts in, as my own definition above, it is a search for the truth of a situation without fear nor favour. Objectivity, as pure as possible.
Subjectivity; the interpretation of scientific results is where opportunists may see avenues for attacking their perceived enemies. This is outside of "science".
Having said all that, however, there may come a responsibility in the presentation of scientific results to curtail potential misinterpretations, but then also, science should not be delayed whilst considering the myriad creative forms of malevolence humanity may take lest nothing would ever be published. Stuck in the mud.
As such, "Science" has no overlap with concepts such as respect, dignity, or rights. Science exists outside of those concepts in, as my own definition above, it is a search for the truth of a situation without fear nor favour. Objectivity, as pure as possible.
Subjectivity; the interpretation of scientific results is where opportunists may see avenues for attacking their perceived enemies. This is outside of "science".
Having said all that, however, there may come a responsibility in the presentation of scientific results to curtail potential misinterpretations, but then also, science should not be delayed whilst considering the myriad creative forms of malevolence humanity may take lest nothing would ever be published. Stuck in the mud.
No, science must pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. There is no such thing as a hate fact.
"In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication."
I'm sure our demigods will gladly enlighten us with their wisdom to distinguish between misthoughts and correct thoughts.
So that when journalists claim to be following the science there will be no dissenting voice in research to disagree.
Those who defend opposing ideas will have no leg to stand on and will rightfully be labeled science deniers
I'm sure our demigods will gladly enlighten us with their wisdom to distinguish between misthoughts and correct thoughts.
So that when journalists claim to be following the science there will be no dissenting voice in research to disagree.
Those who defend opposing ideas will have no leg to stand on and will rightfully be labeled science deniers
As usual, the academic sociopoliticals don't want to delve into issues of wealth and poverty. Notably this has been a real issue in pharmaceutical drug safety trials, which have tended to exploit poor populations in industrialized countries as well as, more recently, the impoverished populations in developing nations. There's no mention of this whatsoever, instead it's about this:
"We also developed two specific sections — on race, ethnicity and racism; and on sex, gender identity/presentation and orientation — that clarify issues with these constructs and explain that racism and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation should have no place in science."
The trend towards moving clinical trials to developing nations was first commented on over a decade ago and is in full swing today, but it doesn't even get a mention. For example:
"Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research", Glickman et al. (2009)"
http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/schering-plough-workshop/file...
> "This phenomenon raises important questions about the economics and ethics of clinical research and the translation of trial results to clinical practice: Who benefits from the globalization of clinical trials? What is the potential for exploitation of research subjects?"
That's an explicit fundamentally important ethical issue, but raising it might imperil academic funding from pharmaceutical corporations, so they stick to their safe topics. It's really kind of pathetic.
"We also developed two specific sections — on race, ethnicity and racism; and on sex, gender identity/presentation and orientation — that clarify issues with these constructs and explain that racism and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation should have no place in science."
The trend towards moving clinical trials to developing nations was first commented on over a decade ago and is in full swing today, but it doesn't even get a mention. For example:
"Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research", Glickman et al. (2009)"
http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/schering-plough-workshop/file...
> "This phenomenon raises important questions about the economics and ethics of clinical research and the translation of trial results to clinical practice: Who benefits from the globalization of clinical trials? What is the potential for exploitation of research subjects?"
That's an explicit fundamentally important ethical issue, but raising it might imperil academic funding from pharmaceutical corporations, so they stick to their safe topics. It's really kind of pathetic.
10 years ago, if someone said that "woke" people got control of institutions and are censoring science that goes against their ideology, I would think that person is crazy. Right now, they even publish manifestos explicitly stating they will be censoring science if it goes against (woke) advocacy groups' ideologies.
Now the crazy person is not the guy denouncing the woke people marching through institutions. It is the guy that sees all this madness in the world and pretends it is not happening.
Now the crazy person is not the guy denouncing the woke people marching through institutions. It is the guy that sees all this madness in the world and pretends it is not happening.
From the article:
> Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society.
> Finally, authors should use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language in their submitted manuscripts.
> Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs.
—-
To me, this sounds like a clergyman espousing articles of faith and commandments.
> Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society.
> Finally, authors should use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language in their submitted manuscripts.
> Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs.
—-
To me, this sounds like a clergyman espousing articles of faith and commandments.
I'm pro trans rights, pro LGBTQ, and also very much value free speech.
There is a trend on the political left right now that basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence)
>Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups
>We commit to using this guidance cautiously and judiciously, consulting with ethics experts and advocacy groups where needed.
It seems very likely to me that this policy is going to give advocacy groups and crusaders the ability to start censoring scientific publications that disagree with what they are saying.
There is a trend on the political left right now that basically equates speech directly with violence (e.g. asking whether a man is capable of getting pregnant is violence)
>Academic content that undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups
>We commit to using this guidance cautiously and judiciously, consulting with ethics experts and advocacy groups where needed.
It seems very likely to me that this policy is going to give advocacy groups and crusaders the ability to start censoring scientific publications that disagree with what they are saying.
This has garnered quite a lot of reactions from the comments. I'd like to ask a genuine question about this, from the perspective of assuming that Nature is acting in good faith about this.
Let's say someone has calculated the polygenic scores (PGS) of Heteronormativity, meaning that a model, can predict with a decent level of accuracy that someone will or will not be straight from their DNA.
This, in an ideal world, would be good knowledge to have. You can raise you child knowing and accepting this reality.
In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information.
So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance? It seems that many in the comments would say yes, and that the pursuit of knowledge is the clear winner, and anything else is merely the price of progress. Which I might ask, you would say the same thing if you were gay?
I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning. Nature is thinking about these things when writing that up.
I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this information for anyone to know would have negative consequences, and should maybe be controlled. So, then, you fundamentally agree with Nature's stance, do you not? We're merely talking about where the line of publishing exists, not if one should exist at all? Are you not being a bit overzealous with your declarations of orthodoxy?
Let's say someone has calculated the polygenic scores (PGS) of Heteronormativity, meaning that a model, can predict with a decent level of accuracy that someone will or will not be straight from their DNA.
This, in an ideal world, would be good knowledge to have. You can raise you child knowing and accepting this reality.
In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information.
So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance? It seems that many in the comments would say yes, and that the pursuit of knowledge is the clear winner, and anything else is merely the price of progress. Which I might ask, you would say the same thing if you were gay?
I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning. Nature is thinking about these things when writing that up.
I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this information for anyone to know would have negative consequences, and should maybe be controlled. So, then, you fundamentally agree with Nature's stance, do you not? We're merely talking about where the line of publishing exists, not if one should exist at all? Are you not being a bit overzealous with your declarations of orthodoxy?
Summary: Orthodoxy above all. If your Facts run over the Dogma we won't publish it.
The astrophysical sciences make me feel vulnerable, insignificant, insecure, and irrelevant relative to the vast expanse of the universe.
I demand an end to this harm.
I demand an end to this harm.
I did try to read it in good faith and give it the benefit of the doubt, but there's about 20 red flags in the article. With the ultimate smoking gun "to consult with advocacy" groups.
Advocacy groups as gatekeepers for scientific publication. It's impossible to get a more biased, emotional and fatalistic view on science.
The next articles on the website:
"Marginalized" people struggling to attend conferences (due to Visa issues)". "Equity in the workplace." "Cultural diversity is crucial for African neuroethics" "Historical trauma compounds experiences of racial injustice"
It's like a Tumblr blog. You can't ever meet the moral "purity" of such staff, so I predict serious scientists go elsewhere, and a game of oppression Olympics begins, as oppression is power.
Advocacy groups as gatekeepers for scientific publication. It's impossible to get a more biased, emotional and fatalistic view on science.
The next articles on the website:
"Marginalized" people struggling to attend conferences (due to Visa issues)". "Equity in the workplace." "Cultural diversity is crucial for African neuroethics" "Historical trauma compounds experiences of racial injustice"
It's like a Tumblr blog. You can't ever meet the moral "purity" of such staff, so I predict serious scientists go elsewhere, and a game of oppression Olympics begins, as oppression is power.
Well, I respect them for formally stating as policy what was presumably being done informally for a long time.
It gives their audience something specific to disagree with, rather than a vague feeling that some kinds of research were being buried.
It gives their audience something specific to disagree with, rather than a vague feeling that some kinds of research were being buried.
I am getting dumb-funded by the obvious senseless thinking in the title:
Science is about the mechanisms of natural worlds. It's the foundation of human civilization. It's the basis of human thoughts and the ideology etc.
To say Science must respect dignity and rights of all humans, it's like to say nature must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. But Science is the rendition of natural world's mechanisms, they do not have personality and emotions. They cannot respect anything!
It's reasonable to say "scientists must respect the dignity and rights of all humans". It's senseless to say Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.
Science is about the mechanisms of natural worlds. It's the foundation of human civilization. It's the basis of human thoughts and the ideology etc.
To say Science must respect dignity and rights of all humans, it's like to say nature must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. But Science is the rendition of natural world's mechanisms, they do not have personality and emotions. They cannot respect anything!
It's reasonable to say "scientists must respect the dignity and rights of all humans". It's senseless to say Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans.
These kinds of policies will not help the people they seek to, instead they will only lessen the public trust in science. Further I believe studies that may benefit the mentioned groups will likely be looked at with even more skepticism now.
Science has nothing to do with the dignity and rights of all humans. Science just a mechanism for separating truth from nonsense.
"[...] Subsequent pontiffs continued to exhort the episcopate and the whole body of the faithful to be on their guard against heretical writings, whether old or new; and one of the functions of the Inquisition when it was established was to exercise a rigid censorship over books put in circulation. The majority of the condemnations were at that time of a specially theological character. With the discovery of the art of printing, and the wide and cheap diffusion of all sorts of books which ensued, the need for new precautions against heresy and immorality in literature made itself felt, and more than one pope (Sixtus IV. in 1479 and Alexander VI. in 1501) gave special directions to the archbishops of Cologne, Mainz, Trier and Magdeburg regarding the growing abuses of the printing press; in 1515 the Lateran council formulated the decree De Impressione Librorum, which required that no work should be printed without previous examination by the proper ecclesiastical authority, the penalty of unlicensed printing being excommunication of the culprit, and confiscation and destruction of the books. The council of Trent in its fourth session, 8th April 1546, forbade the sale or possession of any anonymous religious book which had not previously been seen and approved by the ordinary; in the same year the university of Louvain, at the command of Charles V., prepared an “Index” of pernicious and forbidden books, a second edition of which appeared in 1550."
I think that most of these types of guidelines and rules are written with good intent, but intent is what ruins good science.
Science, as a method, works when you have a hypothesis, but when that hypothesis isn't supported by your findings you can't just discard the findings and go "well I'm still pretty sure I was right anyway."
If you find something you disagree with to be true, that makes the science even more important to share! Other people can start to look at what you've seen and get more details and finer understanding.
Science, as a method, works when you have a hypothesis, but when that hypothesis isn't supported by your findings you can't just discard the findings and go "well I'm still pretty sure I was right anyway."
If you find something you disagree with to be true, that makes the science even more important to share! Other people can start to look at what you've seen and get more details and finer understanding.
Meta comment: It's disappointing to see this axed from the front page. While I agree we should generally avoid low quality flame-war inducing content, the fact that Nature, one of the most prestigious and renown scientific magazines/journals has adopted such a viewpoint certainly warrants exposure and discussion.
The ACLU now only protects those they agree with, and Nature will only publish conclusions they like,
It's a mad world. And this is basically driving moderates into the arms of the authoritarian strongman who at least doesn't deny that water is wet.
It's a mad world. And this is basically driving moderates into the arms of the authoritarian strongman who at least doesn't deny that water is wet.
Here's an example of scientific research being questioned for such ethical reasons, in a less familiar area.
A genetic cure for hereditary deafness looks possible. Here's the objection: "Members of the signing Deaf community argue that research which aims to eliminate or cure deafness is a form of cultural genocide. The argument goes like this: the use of gene therapy to cure hereditary deafness would result in smaller numbers of deaf children. This, in turn, would reduce the critical mass of signing Deaf people needed for a flourishing community, ultimately resulting in the demise of the community."[1]
A similar argument has been made against cochlear implants, which already work in many people who are totally deaf. "According to the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), “An implant is not a ‘cure’ and an implanted individual is still deaf,” which makes us realize the crux of the issue. Those who are deaf and hard of hearing consider these disabilities to be aspects of their identities. By using the cochlear implant, they are essentially killing a piece of themselves that they’ve lived with from the day they were born."[2]
Think about that for a while.
[1] https://impactethics.ca/2017/03/02/gene-therapy-a-threat-to-...
[2] https://www.theodysseyonline.com/cochlear-implant-controvers...
A genetic cure for hereditary deafness looks possible. Here's the objection: "Members of the signing Deaf community argue that research which aims to eliminate or cure deafness is a form of cultural genocide. The argument goes like this: the use of gene therapy to cure hereditary deafness would result in smaller numbers of deaf children. This, in turn, would reduce the critical mass of signing Deaf people needed for a flourishing community, ultimately resulting in the demise of the community."[1]
A similar argument has been made against cochlear implants, which already work in many people who are totally deaf. "According to the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), “An implant is not a ‘cure’ and an implanted individual is still deaf,” which makes us realize the crux of the issue. Those who are deaf and hard of hearing consider these disabilities to be aspects of their identities. By using the cochlear implant, they are essentially killing a piece of themselves that they’ve lived with from the day they were born."[2]
Think about that for a while.
[1] https://impactethics.ca/2017/03/02/gene-therapy-a-threat-to-...
[2] https://www.theodysseyonline.com/cochlear-implant-controvers...
We are converging on a new definition of truth which takes into account social harm. Claims which protect the marginalized and/or harm those groups deemed to be hate groups must be taken as true; claims which do the opposite must be taken as false.
It kind of sucks if you believe in objectivity -- but the postmodernists taught us there is no such thing. Any pretense to objectivity is a means to trick your sorry ass and gain power over you. Like it or not, this is the world of Marcuse, Derrida, Baudrillard and Foucault.
It kind of sucks if you believe in objectivity -- but the postmodernists taught us there is no such thing. Any pretense to objectivity is a means to trick your sorry ass and gain power over you. Like it or not, this is the world of Marcuse, Derrida, Baudrillard and Foucault.
As academic world starts to act more like a religious church, and losing grip on being the good pastors of science, the actual scientific community will detach themselves and leave the academic dogmatists with a label of "scientism" at best.
This would not only destroys woke research but pro-woke as well because if you are guaranteeing publication bias you can't trust the research either way.
This is also a boon to racists who never have to defend themselves against science again.
"Yeah that study shows that Hispanic immigrants don't commit more crimes, but it's against the rules to publish anything else"
This is also a boon to racists who never have to defend themselves against science again.
"Yeah that study shows that Hispanic immigrants don't commit more crimes, but it's against the rules to publish anything else"
This all seems quite dull considering the other reactions here:
> Studies that use the constructs of race and/or ethnicity should explicitly motivate their use. Race/ethnicity should not be used as proxies for other variables — for example, socioeconomic status or income. For studies involving data collected from human participants, researchers should explain:
* who provided the classification terms (the participants, the researchers or third parties)
* what the classification terms are
* how racial/ethnic identity was determined (by the participants, the researchers or third parties)
> Biomedical studies should not conflate genetic ancestry (a biological construct) and race/ethnicity (sociopolitical constructs): although race/ethnicity are important constructs for the study of disparities in health outcomes and health care, empirically established genetic ancestry is the appropriate construct for the study of the biological aetiology of diseases or differences in treatment response. If race/ethnicity are used in the context of disease aetiology due to the unavailability of genetic ancestry data, this should be done with caution and clarification.
> Studies that use the constructs of race and/or ethnicity should explicitly motivate their use. Race/ethnicity should not be used as proxies for other variables — for example, socioeconomic status or income. For studies involving data collected from human participants, researchers should explain:
* who provided the classification terms (the participants, the researchers or third parties)
* what the classification terms are
* how racial/ethnic identity was determined (by the participants, the researchers or third parties)
> Biomedical studies should not conflate genetic ancestry (a biological construct) and race/ethnicity (sociopolitical constructs): although race/ethnicity are important constructs for the study of disparities in health outcomes and health care, empirically established genetic ancestry is the appropriate construct for the study of the biological aetiology of diseases or differences in treatment response. If race/ethnicity are used in the context of disease aetiology due to the unavailability of genetic ancestry data, this should be done with caution and clarification.
As someone who believes in Darwinism I think this is good as it will only accelerate shifting any meaningful research into the labs of private multi-billion companies.
Will this be good for us, the public? Probably not but only the capable survive, and the current academia is not capable of survival.
Will this be good for us, the public? Probably not but only the capable survive, and the current academia is not capable of survival.
It entirely unsurprising that an author cannot be found attached to this excrement
I guess he wasn’t talking about the magazine…