by Will Jones
Top scientific journal Nature has “abandoned science for social justice”, Richard Dawkins has said as he backed a letter written by Chemistry Professor Anna Krylov which accused the journal of “social engineering”. The Times has more.
The criticism of Springer Nature group, which publishes the journal, was made by Anna Krylov, an American professor who has been a supporter of President Trump’s drive to stop American universities from promoting diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) in their admissions policies.
Richard Dawkins, the British evolutionary biologist, backed Krylov and said that too many journals were “favouring authors because of their identity group rather than the excellence and importance of their science”.
The Nature group has said that seeking to include a broad range of perspectives from “a wider spectrum” of researchers can create “a more informed foundation for scholarly work”.
Krylov, a Chemistry Professor at the University of Southern California (USC), said she had been invited to act as a peer-reviewer — a scientist asked to provide independent scrutiny — of a study being published in the journal Nature Communications.
In an open letter to bosses at Springer Nature, she said the topic was “within my field of expertise” and that she would “normally welcome the opportunity”, but asked if she had been contacted “because of my expertise in the subject matter or because of my reproductive organs”.
Krylov cited a pledge from Springer Nature in 2019 to “take action to improve diversity and inclusion” in their journals, asking editors to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers”.
She cited guidance from the Nature Human Behaviour journal from 2022 that suggested some research should not be published if there is a risk that it “undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups”.
She also cited the use of “citation diversity statements”, where scientists can include in their studies a declaration pledging to cite research “in a manner that is equitable in terms of racial, ethnic, gender and geographical representation”.
Many research bodies have said the drive to boost diversity in academia is not born out of tokenism or political correctness. A report in 2022 by UK Research and Innovation said that ensuring scientific studies were not overwhelmingly produced by people from any one background was “essential to achieving high quality scientific outputs” and to making sure that “research findings are… relevant and address the needs of different communities”.
Krylov alleged, however, that “the Nature group has abandoned its mission in favour of advancing a social justice agenda”, accusing it of implementing “policies that have sacrificed merit in favour of identity-based criteria” and of “inject[ing] social engineering into its author guidelines and publishing process”.
Reposting Krylov’s letter on X, Dawkins said: “Nature used to be the world’s most prestigious science journals”, but claimed it was now among many who placed emphasis on the background of authors rather than only on “the excellence… of their science”.
Mario Juric, an Astronomy Professor from the University of Washington, Seattle, said he was asked in 2023 by the Nature Astronomy journal “to suggest alternate reviewers from ‘underrepresented communities’”. He declined and told the journal’s editors: “While I know your publisher’s intentions are good… mixing identity in the review process does nothing to strengthen it.”
Worth reading in full.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Idiotic beyond words. Subject is within her field of expertise, in a domain she has participated in peer reviewed extensively, and suddenly she’s questioning her own relevancy as a peer reviewer? Pure right wing culture war BS. Dawkins has always been a bit of a kook, and he’s only lost the plot more and more as time goes on. It’s little wonder he’s taking up sides with the Trumpets.
The lefties started this woke culture war. Are you offended that their victims strike back?
Poor AlanJ. He’s so consumed by his religion that he thinks any biologist who holds the scientific truth that there are two sexes is somehow “a bit of a kook“.
You can draw your own conclusions on AlanJ’s state of mind.
Who is the alleged victim here?
Anyone who believes in thinking for themselves.
It’s not idiotic. When an organization makes it clear they are prioritizing on identity, this is a natural question to ask. I’m sure not a single day goes by when Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t think about the fact that she got to her position due in very large part to the fact her skin is dark and she has female reproductive organs.
Except, she was, as the interview showed, uncertain what a woman is.
When you listen to her words, you discover she’s uncertain what logic is also.
From that perspective you have to wonder if her primary qualification is not her legal mind, but her color and gender in equal measures. Funny that her promoters don’t like Clarence Thomas, who does have a superb legal mind, as well as dark skin.
Please do not conflate gender and sex.
Biden was perfectly clear from the outset that his nomination was going to be Black and female.
How does Jackson even know she herself is female?
You believing that Jackson cannot be qualified to be a Supreme Court justice because she is a black woman says quite a bit about you as a person.
That’s not what I said. She will always question her qualifications because of what the person who nominated her said he would do. It shouldn’t matter what her race or sex is, but Joe Biden made it abundantly clear to everyone that it does.
I do not think that Jackson questions her qualifications, why do you think that? You seem to believe that she is unqualified for the position, when a quick read of her background shows that she is as qualified as any other Supreme Court justice.
Biden said that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, not that he would nominate someone regardless of their qualifications. The conclusion implied by your stated opinion is that you do not believe there could be a black woman qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
Too bad Biden didn’t bother finding a black woman who had qualifications. There are a lot of them out there, Jackson isn’t one of them.
Biden also pledged to nominate a black woman as his VP candidate, that was how the grossly incompetent Harris was picked.
What are the specific qualifications that Jackson lacks? And what are the specific qualifications for VP that Harris lacked? Again, you guys seem to think that if a black woman was picked for a role it means that someone without relevant qualifications was picked. Why do you believe that?
1. an iq over 110
2. an iq over 100 and not being a public drunk.
While credentials are now useless in determining qualifications after 50 years of affirmative action, sane people can still use one’s eyes and ears to determine someone’s competence.
Remember, you’re arguing qualifications from the same side that told us Biden was the sharpest he’d ever been.
Your subjective perception of their IQ is not a qualification, their qualifications are their professional credentials and background. You need to be specific about what you think is lacking in their credentials and background that is needed to be a qualified candidate for Supreme Court justice or VP. In your answer, do your best not to inadvertently disqualify most past Supreme Court justices and vice presidents.
Their credentials are 100% falsely awarded, at every step. Kamala’s offices held were nothing but political presents given to her.
So the positions she was elected to were political gifts from… the people who voted for her?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Don’t be so down on yourself, Charles.
Nah.
Just from Willie Brown as return for favors rendered.
Professional credentials are meaningless in an era where the clearly incompetent can get jobs just because they have the right physical characteristics.
Did we not have a cabinet secretary who wore a dress and stole women’s luggage at airports?
Alan, I understand your points, but I disagree that professional credentials and background alone are qualifications. I think most people have the experience of seeing people promoted over others that are better fits and more qualified(for various reason). I personally experienced this and people with advanced degrees that lacked common sense and the inability to see logical results from actions. I think you would agree that these are Important qualities for a politician.
In politics you look to see what people say and do. From some presentations and debates (although the current debate format is BS – they should have to present plans like presenting to a VC-IMO – another topic.) you get an understanding of their capacity to comprehend important topics. I think this clip of Kamla Harris is telling https://youtu.be/ACfFCaMiv2c.
Coming from a state that Cloud computing was an important part of the economy ( locally and globally important) this does not instill confidence. In general listing to her speak, a reasonable person would question her intelligence. (even if you don’t know her IQ). For me this alone disqualified her as the implications of not understand this, it’s implications like energy, and actually not being prepared for the questions are telling.
I understand Kamala did some good things when AG of California, but what do you think about this Cloud computing clip and what qualifications(actions) do you think made Harris qualified and a good pick for VP?
These objections are subjective. You don’t feel like Harris was a good candidate. Your feelings are valid, but they are personal and subjective. They have nothing to do with her qualifications on paper, which is the criteria by which we can evaluate whether someone is qualified for a role they are nominated for. Nothing in Harris’s or Jackson’s professional or political careers indicates that that either was unqualified for the jobs they were given.
The claim is being made that two black women with no qualifications were given jobs purely because of their race and sex. My counter is that both women had stellar credentials and were as qualified for the positions as anyone else who has ever been nominated. None of you can articulate a substantive objection to this.
I don’t think she sounded knowledgable about cloud computing in the clip, but her point is valid, if poorly made. She has extensive public service and legal experience, served as a US senator, I don’t know what other qualifications a person should have for a VP role, do you? She and Biden won the presidency in 2020, so more than half of the voting public thought she had all requisite qualifications.
Add, ability to speak coherently.
Intelligence for one.
Independence for another.
Ditto for Harris. The woman had trouble stringing together a coherent sentence without the help of a teleprompter.
Fascinating, we complain about 2 specific women who clearly lack the credentials to hold their current jobs, and from that you conclude we believe no black women have the credentials.
Tell me, are you being paid to make a fool of yourself? Because if you are, you should ask for a raise because of the outstanding job you are doing.
He is racial profiling us because we advocate for merit rather than identity as qualifications.
Intelligence and independence are subjective characteristics, not professional qualifications.
I’m making that accusation because you are incapable of articulating what qualifications they actually lack, the only common thread is that both are black women.
Intelligence and independence are subjective characteristics, not professional qualifications.
Inadvertently, AnalJ reveals the credentialism common among Progressives, who put paper amplification above “subjective’ characteristics like intelligence and independence.
Replace “amplification” by ” qualification”.
I hate predictive text.
Have a look at a few football matches from England’s Premier League and observe the number of players from ethnic minority backgrounds. Far more than the ethnic minority proportion of the population. But nobody (well, very few anyway) questions their right to be playing for these teams. They have obviously got included because of merit. So people don’t object. But in other walks of life that is not necessarily so. Such as Universities. Because of DEI, sex and ethnic minority background can outweigh merit. And here’s a former First Minister of Scotland complaining about the number of white people in senior positions:
Why do you see a person of color on a sports team and assume they are there because of merit yet see a person of color in a university or a leadership role and assume they must have been handed the role without qualification? That seems to expose a rather problematic element of your worldview.
“I do not think that Jackson questions her qualifications, why do you think that?”
Because she was told by Biden that a big part of her being nominated was because she is a black woman. All he had to do was simply keep it to himself and let her nomination stand on its own. But he couldn’t, so her qualifications will always be a question.
“Biden said that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, not that he would nominate someone regardless of their qualifications.”
Precisely the problem. If qualifications were never an issue, why bring race and sex into it?
They are in question to you, I’m asking why do you think that Jackson questions her own qualifications, as you said she does. There is nothing in her resume that would suggest she is unqualified for the role.
If only qualifications were at issue, why had a black woman never been nominated to the SC before?
Poor little AJ, can’t refute the point, so he has to lie about what others wrote.
That isn’t even close to what drh said.
Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court because he was the best candidate, NOT because he was Black.
Your race trolling has been called out. Quit while you’re behind.
So was Jackson, was she not? Again, none of you can say what qualifications she lacks.
AnalJ clearly doesn’t understand Set Theory.
There must be hundreds or even thousands of US judges who have her qualifications. For the Supreme Court you want the BEST candidate. By limiting the pool of candidates to only Black females Biden is highly unlikely to have found the best.
Alan, you a hopeless moronielle.
You can’t even use your cognitive ability, small as it may be, to recognize that being chosen due to an immutable characteristic such as being female, is at least a micro aggression.
It is the same as saying, you aren’t capable based on merit, but you are female and we respect your perspective.
The left has invented social justice, you should realize that conservatives have a view that is just as respectable whereby merit should be the deciding factor. Social justice does not make you morally better than others. Live with it!
Except no one was chosen because they were a woman. In Krylov’s own words, she is a highly qualified expert in this field who has participated in peer review on this same subject in the past. There is no legitimate basis for questioning why she was asked to be a reviewer. It’s all hysterical right wing culture war BS as always. Dawkins has fallen for it.
She feels she was chosen based on her sex. Aren’t we supposed to believe all women?
I’ll take “disingenuous whataboutism” for 300, Alex.
It’s more of a humorous aside. Not that I expect you to figure out the difference.
That standard only applies to liberal women.
That’s your take on it. However they did pledge to find a woman. The track record of those who put immutable characteristics as the first element in a search, is not good.
For once, in this instance, they did find a good one. Most of the time they don’t.
That implies you think there is a very low chance of finding a female reviewer who is competent. You comments are just exposing your fundamentally sexist viewpoint.
I’m beginning to feel that AJ’s inability to read what others actually wrote is a congenital condition.
Biden’s slate of Supreme Court candidates included only females with dark skin.
Every person highly qualified for the position.
Another bit of sophistry to intensify the flame wars.
Why is Dawkins a kook? You don’t believe in evolution? 🙂
No no, you got that wrong. He can say that because it is in his field of expertise, obviously.
Maybe she wouldn’t have challenged them if they didn’t say:
It really is odd they way those on the left actually believe that scientific facts differ depending on the what the color of your skin or what gender you are.
Please do not conflate gender with sex.
It really is odd they way those on the left actually believe that scientific facts differ depending on what the color of your skin or what gender you are.
“lost the plot more and more as time goes on”
Some people, like AlanJ, never had the plot… and never will !!
Delusional.. and no chance of any change. Prime target for TDS. !
Being called a ‘kook’ by you is high praise indeed, it means he’s actually intelligent…
Lysenko lives!!
Nah. The Great Climatening mostly relies on crude embezzling. Not nearly the same level of sleight-of-hand as feeding show cows with condensed milk.
Story Tip (related to the theme of Science becoming Political Science): “Anti-Greta” Activist flees Europe after antifa death threats; Elon Musk backs her asylum claims.” She is Naomi Seibt, from Germany, and she says to return to Germany will result in imprisonment, at least. The Net Zero crowd is aligned with antifa?
Seen to late, sorry, but I linked a tweet about.
There are no tweets.
Whatever it’s called today 👍😂
No surprise in these quarters.
Funny how they’re so concerned about identity group diversity but are completely anti thought diversity when it comes to actual scientific concerns like climate, Covid or vaccination. Do Nature publications still ban climate change skeptic papers? Do they ask any skeptics to review climate paper submissions from true believers?
Do they even allow skeptic papers from those that check the appropriate DEI boxes?
does any body even know what “social justice” means – sounds like just another form of communism
It means that the deranged leftists are in charge and everyone else is a slave, if allowed to live.
…and on top of that expected to be thankful for all this utter BS
If you want to install tyranny you can’t come up and say ” tyranny” –
you need to cover it in fancy words like Climate, Covid .
Communism no longer works – therefore call it social justice.
As those things don’t come when you need them,
especially not on a global scale you need to invent them into existence.
Just as communism was astroturfed into existence (literally noone knew anything about Moses Hess writings and 99% haven’t read anything from Karl Marx back then, yet unrests all over the place – nowadays called arab springs and colored revolution)
it is needed now as catalyst for a transformation.
The biggest trick here is to create the illusion that it is a grasroot movement wanted by millions and billions and that it is the will of of the people while in fact it has been an idea of very few rich men who forced it upon the rest.
And social justice sounds so much better than oligarchic technocracy.
Isn’t citing “rich men” also indulging in identity politics?
Hmmm…?
Tough to answer.
Considering the low number of female billionaires, especially self-made ones
and the fact that there are no females at the very top of the globalist hierarchy
in any relevant position(quota Bimbos like Merkel,Lagarde, VD Lyen have no say)
throughout the last 100 years,
and that there is only one billionaire tranny
I may get away with this heresy as it is 99% + accurate..
Is “rich” an identity?
Seems different than e.g. bushy Greek eyebrows.
Is Arab Spring still a relevant phrase? It sounds like a last-decade-phrase.
The more generic term is:’ colour revolutions’.Usually put forward by the west to ‘defend Democracy’ie Regime Change. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that it always takes place in countries that are not completely playing ball w US hegemony? And are often close to ‘enemy’ territory? It is well documented.
Anyway, this platform is super critical about Climate Change but many posters here seem very much pro US hegemony, whatever it takes. A strange dichotomy
We get it. Any country that doesn’t reflexively oppose the US, is being run by the CIA.
Basically a restatement of communism that entails the (very) forced ‘leveling’ of the economy / society (redundant terms in my opinion) by a centralized authority. To paraphrase the late George Carlin, said authority will be “a big club, and you ain’t in it”.
Ayn Rand described something called an ‘anti-concept’. Basically it means that a re-phrasing of something is intended to actually destroy it’s meaning.
So, ‘social justice’ basically means the destruction of the meaning of the word ‘justice’ by adding in a characteristic that overrides the main meaning.
Pure evil, and it works for the average person due to its sounding like it’s concerned about treating people fairly.
Indeed, look at how incredibly successfully they have changed the meaning of “climate change”.
Logically speaking, putting the word “justice” in front of anything is the same as putting the word “not” there.
social justice = not justice
social science = not science
For that matter, putting anything in front of justice is the same
environmental justice = not justice
It means, “You will have nothing and you will be happy.”
It means the practioners of “social justice” are morally superior to those who practice “merit based” promotion.
Socrates struggled with defining “justice.” It sounds like the Left decided to make it more convoluted by adding another word.
Any attempts to modify “justice” ends up making it less just.
Social “Justice” is disguised Marxism.
Illiberalism is more apt.
As a slogan, it’s much older. But of course, what Plymouth tried was naive Communism without this name attached, so…
Usage of justice as an euphemism for righteousness in general goes back to one John Rawls:
Which for once is quite on-topic, since Dawkins is in the same business, writ large: laundering theology from certain branches of Protestantism to circumvent separation of Church and State.
If you don’t feel some dismay yet… consider the mystery of Armenian genocide. The Armenians say those massacres happened, the Turks say they did not, but do you remember either side offering any details? No? Isn’t this unusual? Then read “The Chatham House Version And Other Middle Eastern Studies” by Elie Kedourie, specifically “Minorities” part. Count euphemisms for “an antinomian sect”, while you are at it. Explains too much, and not only about XIX century East of Mediterranean sea, does it not?
Story Tip
You may remember Anti-Greta from Germany, Naomi Seibt.
She’s now seeking asylum in the USA.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1983486469147963676?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1983486469147963676%7Ctwgr%5E1965fb94b44650105d828196054045ebc54b08b8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tichyseinblick.de%2Fdaili-es-sentials%2Fdeutsche-influencerin-beantragt-asyl-in-den-usa%2F
She’s now seeking asylum in the USA.
__________________
And Germany is supposed to be a NATO ally? I believe I recall USVP JD Vance warning Europe regarding evidence of the breakdown of free speech rights in Europe (and the UK in particular) not too long ago. We in the US are not in NATO to defend nations that suppress human rights.
If they do not want us leaving NATO, then don’t give us reasons to do so.
Vance was so right!
The US uses NATO to fight their ‘enemies’, support proxy wars and Regime Changes.
And then Trump pretends NATO is not run by the US, as if it’s an independent operator. Just like he is an ‘intermediate’ in a war between Russia and Ukraine.
The gall!!
Trump threatening to leave NATO is as misleading as they come..
We get it. Like MadMani’s father is quoted as saying, “The US is the source of all evil in the world.”
Wake me up when Nature retracts MBH98 and its successors. Until then, it’s just another garbage journal that has been overrun by the Left.
I let my subscription lapse years ago. There were many many straws. I remember they kept publishing one or two articles a year on advances in climate modeling, and being gobsmacked at them discovering clouds should be factored in. Maybe mountain ranges and other topological features, there were too many silly “advances” to keep track of. But the final straw was an editorial about the US elections and gun control. From a UK science journal? The subscription was up for renewal a month or two later, and I just let it go.
If they retracted tomorrow, they’d lose most of their subscriber base. It’s a bad moment (has there been a good one?) to be an unemployed left-leaning science writer.
The journal Science has taken a sharp left as well.
Scientific American was taken over by the left years ago. It’s just a glitzy liberal rag these days.
It was great when I started reading in high school in the mid ’60s.
Springer owns them too
More specifically, it was acquired by a German publishing corporation.
This is really interesting.The attempts to produce more science in evaluations of human affairs is long standing such as Lotka’s 1920 “Physical Biology.” The later and more elaborate advances (Ethology) may have started with Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch who were awarded a Nobel Prize, an exceptional and controversial event. Along came “The Selfish Gene” and “The Extended Phenotype” by Dawkins giving more emphasis on the gene structure of DNA rather than the individual. Since then there seems to have been more of a search for ‘God.’ I’m not well read or up to date on this but as a biologist who taught this it seems to be very significant for the field and a problem for Nature and their collaborating journals.
It appears to me that most of academia abandoned science half a century ago. It is an expert opinion echo chamber. If a field of study has science in its name you can be pretty sure that it never tests its hypotheses. Peer review itself is not science and is possibly anti science.
Most of academia, abandoned academics as well.
Why half a century? Either way, if you talk large scale, like “most of academia”, may as well extend the view in time.
The academia as we all know it (because it’s all more or less reshaped in the image of Harvard, not only in USA) is corrupt. Obviously. What corrupted it? Power is known to do that, and it’s clearly a part of the picture here. So we have a simple hypothesis. Let’s see whether anyone else noticed? Yes:
Sounds about right. Once the feedback loop trough power was formed, corruption have started. How else? But which Progressives have started this? When and where did that Ring of Power change hands?
Mugwumps. That’s late XIX century. After that, it’s but a matter of slow, yet inevitable spread of sewage with time. The rest is down to subjective sense of smell vs. level of contamination in a given part of that body of water.
What else is on their grocery list? Let’s see it.
All scientific research papers should be submitted anonomously.
Only after peer review acceptance should authorship and affiliations be provided.
Double blind peer review?
Seems like the papers are reviewed by the blind as it is now.
Wonder how many people would be asked to review their own papers? Nah, double blind review is probably a bad idea.
That’s probably what happens now 🙂
An honest academic would return the paper and request a different reviewer.
Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of honest academics left.
On the other hand, when the identification of the author and reviewers are revealed at the end of the process, people might notice.
The Century 21 paradigm.
Knowledge and reason have given way to beliefs and emotions; it isn’t what you know, it’s how you feel about it. As the people who made St.Greta an environmental star put it:
“How is it possible for you to be so easily tricked by something so simple as a story, because you are tricked? Well, it all comes down to one core thing and that is emotional investment. The more emotionally invested you are in anything in your life, the less critical and the less objectively observant you become.” — David JP Phillips, We Don’t Have Time board of directors, “The Magical Science of Storytelling”
Dawkins is right. Social justice can mean whatever you want it to for whichever identity group you have in mind.
Anyone who believes a man can go from XY to XX needs help:
Sex = hardware
Gender = Software glitch.
It’s actually a 20th century paradigm.
The Frankfurt School came up with their “feelings over reality” – plans ( alongside polymorphic perversion ) a 100 years ago andit was massively pushed since the hippie movement.
And all those “glitches”(gender,pronouns,safe zones) are intentional features that have been forced on society, not glitches.
But… it gained its power in the 21st Century.
The EU? Come on, Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan Europe was delayed by decades thanks to some whacko Austrian corporal…
I’m really surprised that out of all people, you came up with the Kalergi Plan,
( the Barbra Spectre Video may help to verify it ).
While I haven’t mentioned the EU(and therefore don’t exactly know what you are aiming at).
No EU = no Kalergi plan possible to open up borders everywhere.
No WW1/ WW2 = no league of nations = no UN.
The power was already there all over the place – otherwise feelings= feminization would have been countered by half,probably most of the countries as natural response.
(look at the carplate of the Limousine the Archduke? was shot in by Princip.
Maybe you get an idea how much of a coincidence WW1 was)
And as you talked about the Austrian Painter( Sponsored by JPM. JDR and Prescott Bush),
let me anger you by quoting someone you like.
Someone who was always 2 steps ahead,someone with the same ethnicity as Barbra Spectre (and someone who died after he released a movie about powerful people and sex rituals,just as his peer PP Passolini).
” The austrian painter was right , with almost everything he said”
Stanley Kubrick
Have you not read Kalergi’s tome: Praktischer Idealismus?
https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Idealism-Kalergi-destroy-European/dp/1913057097
Kids? This happened over 30 years ago.
Do not forget “Science” which is not – especially in its editorializing. The EiC, thankfully, was ejected from my university.
Nature has become a mouth piece of the CCP. Really, they published this in 2015..
According to it, they falsely claim 49.9 / 71.3 = 0.6, or 40% less, so that chinese coal held 40% less carbon than “the IPCC thought”. With that “insight” China burning ridiculous amounts of coal is not so bad..
It is not just that chart, but the essential finding of that paper. From the abstract:
I can not really believe how 24 authors AND the peer review have all failed seeing that 49.9/71.3 = 0.7, not 0.6. This is either kindergarden level idiocy, or alternatively the message “we do not care, we make true whatever we want”..
Here is the paper btw..
Liu et al 2015
Consider the author list and it is entirely clear.
China and India have almost quadrupled their coal usage since the start of this century.
Therefore you have to come up with some serious nonsense to keep the decarbonasation of the west going.
The Times mis-quotes what the ‘E’ in DEI is. It is not “equality” it is “equity”. And they are not the same thing.
Thank you.
““research findings are… relevant and address the needs of different communities””
That’s not what science is about.
“Social justice” is just another Marxist tool to fool the masses. Keeping the narrative alive will last until they are in power and that’s when everybody realizes it means equal poverty for everyone but the elites.
But “It’s got electrolytes.”
And social justice is gluten free.
I like that. 🙂
An updated version of “Animal Farm”.
(Except, today, the “farmer” they want to oust isn’t the bad guy.)
I know little about peer review but it appears to me that if professor Krylov had agreed to peer review for Nature it would have increased the value of Nature’s peer review by orders of magnitude.
Is it being suggested that people of some backgrounds are incapable of acting as the classic “disinterested observer” and their “scientific outputs” need to be balanced by those think the ‘right’ way, or that for controversial hypotheses, the majority opinion should have sway over logic and facts? It certainly looks to be the case.
I do wish that someone would explain just how different genders or ethnicities can improve on objective facts and impeccable logic. Otherwise, I might come to the conclusion that there are some people who are just looking to ‘stuff the ballot box’ so that a vote will produce a majority that agree with their unsupported opinion. Apparently those of the ‘Progressive Persuasion’ don’t understand that “consensus” and “science” don’t belong in the same sentence. That is probably because they don’t understand the Scientific Method and think that facts are discerned through voting.
This dude again?
That’s fairly obvious. Would it not be more interesting to find out for what did Richard Dawkins himself abandon it?