I had a quick read of the Telegraph article late last night. The impression I was left with was it was mostly a criticism of something akin to affirmative action. The magazine prioritising or even commissioning pieces from communities the editors would consider marginalised and under represented. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the commissioned voices knew the subject and had something useful to say about it. It seems that isn't always the case though. The other criticisms was what follows from that. Not publishing people who are from communities considered privileged. The most damning criticism, imo, is not publishing work that undermines or contradicts the pet orthodoxies of the editors.

I'm thinking Howie is hoping that he'll get commissioned. Not outside the realms of possibility considering the nonsense that's appeared under their banner. You'd think though that they must draw the line somewhere?

Nature really has let itself down over the past few years and fatally undermined progressive credibility in the process. As a progressive, I am furious at them for being such ideologically driven idiots, and if it’s true they’ve gone down this path of broadcasting weak “evidence” and suppressing the truth because they want to justify some staff members’ decisions to trans their kids, that’s truly appalling. Heads should roll.

Good god. How did a thread about a woman calling out a science journal for abandoning scientific rigor in favor of political and social bias devolve into something about Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia? Please everyone stop taking troll bait. We all know how easy it is to poke gaping holes in their ideology and that they just come here to get their histrionics on so if you just ignore them they'll go away.

I'm glad the times and other media outlets are picking this up more signs the tides are turning. I recall similar accusations made against Scientific American which eventually led to their chief editor resigning.

"The difference being that Dawkins has not, as far as I’m aware, promoted his own version of social justice or politics under the guise of scientific research."

My claim was he exploited his knowledge & credentials in science to promote his own version of 'social justice' beliefs. That he hasn't used scientific research to do so is irrelevant because the context is exploiting science as a social/political propaganda tool.

Apart from his deliberate oversimplification of the reproductive system he has used biology in The God Delusion to argue that the complexity of life is not evidence for a designer, but rather the result of evolution by natural selection. He explains that natural selection is a gradual, cumulative process that creates the appearance of design without any conscious intent, much like a "blind watchmaker". Dawkins also uses biological concepts, such as memetics and the evolutionary origins of morality, to suggest that religious belief itself is a psychological by-product of adaptive strategies shaped by natural selection, rather than a divinely inspired truth.

Dawkins also strongly argues for a genetic basis of homosexuality and postulates that the gene was preserved through various social and cultural processes.

He also exploits his reputation as a world class scientist & by extension a person of rational authority to promote his other beliefs of Islamophobia & misogyny to millions of fawning men.

The difference being that Dawkins has not, as far as I’m aware, promoted his own version of social justice or politics under the guise of scientific research. He has said many controversial things, but none of them have been misrepresented as science rather than personal political commentary. Separating the two is essential.

I was caught by her descriptions of authoritarian attempts to control the narrative.
Always interesting how people glean different insights. Yours is a more in depth and thorough reading I'm sure.

as an atheistic scientist I’d tend to agree, but have to point out that in this context it’s not just supernaturalistic religions which are problematic. Soviet dogma ‘denouncing’ Pauling’s work on resonance structures as ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’ … and now we have dogmas about the reality of sex etc.

Thanks @MarieDeGournay- a proper critique of the article rather than whatever the heck some of the other posts were about!
Yes…your last paragraph nails it concisely. And unfortunately it does seem that some of the journals (and academia more widely) have policies in which politics are overriding scientific validity.

What an incredible piece of writing; her careful eloquence from not so long ago and not so far away brought tears to my eyes. Thank you so much for sharing.

I don't understand how any scientist can be religious. Science is objective truths that can be proved. Religion* *is about irrationnal beliefs.

Isn’t it? I think it particularly struck home with me because she’s of a similar age and in a related field to my own (I’m not a quantum mechanic though!). She was having to deal with soviet ideology, digging potatoes with sticks at a point where I was happily employed developing chemistry software commercially.

There's a difference between journals abandoning academic rigour by publishing articles which run counter to basic, verifiable and verified scientific fact and what Prof Krylov is objecting to.

She is taking issue with journals seeking to broaden the range of contributors and peer reviewers. But having contributors and peer reviewers from a wider demographic range does not mean that their work will be inferior.

She seems to be jumping to the conclusion that if contributors and reviewers are from outside the tradition academic demographic, they are going to be incapable of 'scientific rigour'.
For example, she stated that the Springer Nature Diversity Commitment published in 2019 tells editors to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers”, while authors are instructed to suggest reviewers “with diversity in mind.”

She implies that adding a few women researchers or reviewers to the existing pool of male researchers or reviewers will bring the standard down.
The same argument is made about encouraging people from different ethnic backgrounds, as if they will inevitably produce inferior work.

The editorial policy is what matters: does the publication insist on the highest standards of academic rigour? If so, good. If it follows fads and abandons 'science over social justice' , bad.

Science isn't being 'abandoned in favour of social justice' if a publication seeks to broaden the pool of contributors and reviewers, as long as the editorial line is held. There's nothing wrong with encouraging submissions from groups who have not traditionally flourished in academia - it should go without saying that some of them will be good enough to meet even Prof Kylov's highest standards of academic rigour.

The issue is not scientific publications seeking to attract a wider range of contributors, it is scientific publications not applying the same standards of scientific rigour to all submissions, including articles on sex and gender.

This. The other new troll exhibits the same misogyny with a dollop of racism. I will take Dawkins' feminism over this double act any day.

Amazing that we're meant to take instruction on correct feministing from the "successful sexual assault" poster.

As for taking instruction on how to be a feminist, I've been one since before Butler published anything, my mother was one since before Butler was born. I think Butler's enthusiasm for obfuscation and self-advertisement, along with her enthusiastic invention/elaboration of the concept of 'gender' as a thing, has been entirely counter to women's interests.

'Different combinations of gamete size'

Has that sperm sperg spegg egg thing been causing confusion? It's a

JOKE

not an example of hard science.

Wow, @ErrolTheDragon , that's a fascinating as and very instructive essay. I hadn't been aware of a push to rename things in science like there is in the arts and in the public sphere, but it makes perfect sense.

What a rather chilling read.

I figure that attention seeking behaviour is best ignored, but, intentionally or otherwise, some sunlight has been shed on a couple of issues.

Please don’t waste your breath on our Aussie visitor. He is a lying misogynistic prick who claimed to be female when he first arrived on Mumsnet, and does nothing but derail, misrepresent others and talk shit. He also exhibits a nasty streak of ageism and disdain for women who don’t aspire to look like some sort of Brazilian model, and thinks what defines a woman is an innate desire to wear feminine-coded clothing and make up.
He is utterly ignorant of the experiences of real women, but has zero self-awareness of this.

Fucking half term

Loved that essay. Thank you. It probably deserves it's own thread as there is so much to unpack from it.

From what I've read, Gorbachev (& his wife) were intellectuals and instigators of glasnost, the people trying to reverse it are the opposite.
Mao Zedong targeted intellectuals.

Tell me you haven’t read butler without telling me you haven’t read butler. Bless your heart.

Finally. Whether you agree with all her views is irrelevant. The point is you agree on a foundational one that I don't. So as I stated, you're closer to Butler than you imagine so perhaps next time you invoke her as an insult you may want to think about who you are really insulting….😂

Sorry still trying to parse your previous post? Are you saying you’re my brother? And weren’t you the one arguing gender was biological on other posts. Of course gender is socially constructed. Just because I agree with butler on that doesn’t mean I embrace all her views. It’s not all or nothing lol. You seem very confused. Have you actually read Butler?

Again, are you denying gender is socially constructed?