Has nature magazine lost the plot?

[Mountainmike]

I’ve never been the greatest fan of nature.
Whilst it contains some interesting stuff, it always did seem to have an agenda, on a variety of scientific issues it was not impartial as it should be.

Has it finally lost the plot?
It now has gone woke too.
Daily sceptic explains how…which links the nature article in question.

The Ideological Capture of Nature and Why it Matters

At the heart of it is this claim that nature
“will seek to understand the systemic nature of racism in science “
Which presupposes it exists! There should be a “whether” in the title.


thoughts?

 

[Tanj]

I’ve never been the greatest fan of nature.
Whilst it contains some interesting stuff, it always did seem to have an agenda, on a variety of scientific issues it was not impartial as it should be.

Has it finally lost the plot?
It now has gone woke too.
Daily sceptic explains how…which links the nature article in question.

The Ideological Capture of Nature and Why it Matters

At the heart of it is this claim that nature
“will seek to understand the systemic nature of racism in science “
Which presupposes it exists! There should be a “whether” in the title.


thoughts?

Your attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill is so far at the level of "moderate speed bump".

Along the way perhaps explain why Nature should be impartial. Its articles should be, I see no reason why its editorial board should be likewise.

As someone that has published in Nature, I say you go girl, do what ever you need to do to ensure my impact factors remain impactful.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I’ve never been the greatest fan of nature.
Whilst it contains some interesting stuff, it always did seem to have an agenda, on a variety of scientific issues it was not impartial as it should be.

Has it finally lost the plot?
It now has gone woke too.
Daily sceptic explains how…which links the nature article in question.

The Ideological Capture of Nature and Why it Matters

At the heart of it is this claim that nature
“will seek to understand the systemic nature of racism in science “
Which presupposes it exists! There should be a “whether” in the title.


thoughts?

Perhaps you should read the Nature article. The authors explain what they mean by that phrase why they consider that claim to be true. It's telling that the dailysceptic argues against a point that the Nature article doesn't raise, and you appear to be backing the same argument.

 

[Mountainmike]

Along the way perhaps explain why Nature should be impartial. Its articles should be, I see no reason why its editorial board should be likewise.

That smells like a contradiction!

Take climate change.
There are shades of opinion on severity.

An editorial board selecting only papers which present areas of evidence supporting more extreme views , can indeed distort the overall balance which science should strive to determine and present.

On the wider point, in U.K. bbc and other media are losing a lot of viewers because of obsession with minority views, critical race theory , presumption of systemic bias and so on. I do not think nature should go the same road.

 

[Tanj]

That smells like a contradiction!

Take climate change.
There are shades of opinion on severity.

An editorial board selecting only papers

which present areas of evidence supporting more extreme views , can indeed distort the overall balance which science should strive to determine and present.

They'd also not be doing their job. Like I said, I have no problem with the editorial board editorialising, so long as the papers are neutral.

On the wider point, in U.K. bbc and other media are losing a lot of viewers because of obsession with minority views, critical race theory , presumption of systemic bias and so on.

You forgot to include unicorns. I find whenever making a broad claim without a hint of evidence, always include unicorns, that way it has exactly the same level of credibility (0), but at least it is entertaining to the reader.

I do not think nature should go the same road.

In all honesty I do. The concept of "high impact journal". is an outdated dinosaur of an idea. Sadly, inertia and legacy are too strong to change it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The concept of "high impact journal". is an outdated dinosaur of an idea. Sadly, inertia and legacy are too strong to change it.

I can't say I ever got the point of "high impact journals". Most everyone around me publishes in the main society published journals for our subfields, including everything that I've ever done. There is a small bit of "prestige" in the Letters sections/journal, but that mostly comes from your work being "timely" and deserving of rapid evaluation and publishing of a small coherent work. (No rambling!) Done that a few times.

 

[durangodawood]

Human institutions are rife with systemic racism. I dont see why science would be any different.

 

[Mountainmike]

Human institutions are rife with systemic racism. I dont see why science would be any different.

The difference is , science is obliged to demonstrate the allegation before presume it is valid.

Otherwise the allegation can end up as a myth repeated so often it gains the status of fact.

Science is there to determine the difference between presumption and testable fact.

 

[Tanj]

I can't say I ever got the point of "high impact journals". Most everyone around me publishes in the main society published journals for our subfields, including everything that I've ever done. There is a small bit of "prestige" in the Letters sections/journal, but that mostly comes from your work being "timely" and deserving of rapid evaluation and publishing of a small coherent work. (No rambling!) Done that a few times.

Some fields are more prone to this that others. I have heard of at least one field/journal where authors are always listed in alphabetical order, so there is no "first and last" privilege. The biggest issue is in the biomedical/biological sciences. You cannot get away from it, no matter how hard you try.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'd argue that Dr Staddon has lost the plot - but I can't say I'm surprised. Much of his public facing schtick for the last five years or so has been 'anti-diversity/anit-SJW/anti-woke/anti-CRT' cranky intellectualism. The academic equivalent of "Am I so out of touch? No, its the children that are wrong" meme.

May | 2018 | The New Behaviorism
Possum’s Handy Guide to Wokeness | The New Behaviorism
Is Diversity an Enemy of Excellence? - Intellectual Takeout

Some of this writing seems to be aimed at exculpating bigotry with a sort of 'well, maybe its not so bad, if you interpret it this way' kind of handwave.

Op-ed: Worse than Bigotry | The New Behaviorism
How Not to React to a Research Paper — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

Also, he has something against Nature. This is far from the first time he's been critical of them.