Leading journal accused of abandoning science over ‘social justice agenda’

[IwantToRetire]

A top journal publisher has been accused of abandoning science in favour of a “social justice agenda”.

Nature, which produces several leading science journals, has faced criticism over its position on equality, diversity and inclusion from leading scientists.

Prof Anna Krylov, a professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California, shared an open letter online encouraging fellow scientists to boycott Nature until it “recommits to scientific excellence”.

She said: “The Nature group has abandoned its mission in favour of advancing a social justice agenda.”

She accused it of trying to play identity politics and promote specific demographics instead of focusing on science, which is supposed to be “guided by a commitment to finding objective truth”.

The letter was backed by Prof Richard Dawkins, an expert in evolutionary biology, who said on X: “Nature used to be the world’s most prestigious science journal. Now it’s one of many accused of favouring authors because of their identity group rather than the excellence and importance of their science.”

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/26/bbc-allows-work-from-home-if-worried-about-trans-toilet/

And at https://archive.is/q5JlX

Islam is progressive in terms of womens rights?

Are you drunk, Howse?

You could say the same about Christian fundamentalism. Clearly, religion isn't the problem rather it's individual humans who exploit it not unlike capitalism.

No, not everyone who is disagrees with me but you are definitely a misogynist.
You're the one who accused RD of misogyny on this thread so fuck off with your accusations of "you people"

No, I think he really is that dim.

Quite honestly its irrelevant.

If any of someones beliefs impacted on their ability to carry out their actual work or research, then it would matter.

How many of us have benefited because some men have invented tools, medicine or even music that we like but are absolute shits.

The point of the article in the OP is about how supposed professionals have let their belief systems warp or corrupt their work.

I think we need a new catergory of posts. The bee in the bonnet threads. For all those who come on threads and whatever they are meant to be about constantly stopped actual discussion to go over and over their particular obsession.

I suspect even the sainted JKR could have accusations against her.

This isn't a forum about creating heros or heroines we follow unquestioningly.

It is about all the issues that impact on women and women's lives.

I am beginning to doubt it is possible to have a straight forward discussion, including differences of opinion, but enlarging or informing on the issue or topic of the OP of that thread.

None of this has anything to do with the problems with Nature and publishing research. Ignore the distractions.

Relative to Christianity yes. Obviously secularism is preferable to anything but I’d rather live under an Islamic theocracy than a Christian one.

Firstly, what is a 'gender critical'? When did adjectives become nouns?

Secondly, I am not aware of anybody, let alone Gender Critical Radical Feminists, who regards RD as a defender of 'womens rights'. He is a defender of the scientific method.

One could say the same about the cultish religion of gender critical ideology.

We actually have science (if not Nature) on our side, but I will respect the OP's request and stop responding to the distractions.

Firstly, what is a 'gender critical'? When did adjectives become nouns?

"Gender-critical" can informally be used as a noun to mean a person who holds these beliefs. For example, "She is a gender-critical" is understood to mean she is a gender-critical person.

"Secondly, I am not aware of anybody, let alone Gender Critical Radical Feminists, who regards RD as a defender of 'womens rights'. He is a defender of the scientific method.'

https://x.com/RichardDawkins/status/1465324057277173772

Sex being bi/multi modal isn't in least scientifically controversial so no you don't in the way you think

England is the closest you can get to a Christian theocracy given that the CoE is the established Church and bishops sit in the HoL as Lords Spiritual. Didn't you notice that the new Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman?

I'm agnostic, but this is just plain wrong. What Islamic society is even close to being a leader in women's rights? Compare every current Islamic theocracy with every Christian one and it's pretty clear which group averages to be better overall for women (and children). And don't give outliers or historical comparisons like saying being a Muslim woman in 2025 Istanbul is better than being a Jewish woman during the Spanish Inquisition.

Nah it's just his standard tedious behaviour - a cross between Kevin the teenager & rik from the young ones

The thing is, whatever the politics of individuals, science shouldn’t be impacted. So RD’s stance on women’s rights, atheism, fundamentalists of any kind, should not influence his science.

Some science journals have abandoned scientific method for fluffy pieces that prop up their world view. Not science.

Well I cant stop anyone, and even politely request, but get frustrated that in depth discussions or thread development dont happen because of whatabouterry.

I'm suggesting this rather than deliberate highjacking.

I remember, or maybe wrongly, that FWR could be really long, but raised issues and ideas from the starting point of the OP. Rather than, niggle, niggle.

You know just as well as I do that that is rubbish but I will respect the OP's request, stop playing pigeon chess and leave you with a heartfelt ODFOD.

It’s like having a phone call, or even visitors, with a toddler in the room. One of mine in particular couldn’t allow conversation that wasn’t with or focused on them. They would cartwheel in the middle of the room, climb up on laps, pinch my cheeks, anything to get me to stop listening to and looking at someone else, and just focus on them.

"The point of the article in the OP is about how supposed professionals have let their belief systems warp or corrupt their work."

But you used Richard Dawkins to make this point who has let his belief system exploit his scientific achievements.

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

In fact RD who knows better because of his scientific achievements in biology knows full well the the critique of 'sex being binary' isn't about denying the binary nature of the reproductive system but that within it has the capacity to produce sex ambiguity in outcomes. IE he's lying & he knows it AND he's using his credentials to do it.

Perhaps next time if you want to make a point about the corruption of scientific journals don't use someone who is guilty of doing it too to support your argument?

No, you're right and I will try my best to avoid it in future.

Once I have finished 'Climbing Mount Improbable' (the toad in the photo will be familiar to those who have read it), I will read 'The War on Science.' The latter book is pertinent to your OP.

Quite. But it is on you.

This is about facts, not belief. When RD speaks on science, on his field of expertise, only a fool would argue with him. He can, and does, have opinions on all kinds of topics that people may or may not agree with. So what? Either way, facts are facts.