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

You realise both Butler & Gender criticals have more in common than you think like gender is a social construct. Oh wait….😂

The ignorance about feminism by so called 'feminists' never disappoints …

But Butler believes men can be women. Have you read her work? You both have the same writing styles so I think you’ll like it.

Nobody has "different gamete sizes," you monumentally dishonest idiot.

So you deny gender is socially constructed now? 'Cause that's a fundamental gender critical talking point particularly on MN IE typical gendered behaviour being 'learned'?

My problem with the critique of research including phenomena that is social justice related is that it assumes that because it is it must be:

My problem with the critique of research including phenomena which are social justice related...

There, fixed that for you, at least.

How to tell everybody you don't understand DSD's without telling them.

The presence of different sex chromosomes can affect the development and function of the gonads. For instance, XXY individuals may have smaller testes that produce fewer sperm. In some cases, individuals may have both ovarian and testicular tissue, but will produce one type of gamete or the other.

@Swiftasthewind your obvious trolling is getting tiresome now.

Errr you just contradicted your own argument. Do you want to reroll on a comprehension check?

Trying to run from you Butler sister?

How refreshing it would be for once to speak with emotionally mature people who can say: Yes, I've changed my body with hormones and surgery, but I still am, biologically, of my sex. I have done it to cope with my intense feelings, but I understand that my sex hasn't changed, and people have the right to think so. I wil be respectful and respected.

What??? Are you callling me Butler, saying I have a Butler or saying Butler is my sister? That sentence makes no sense.

Again, are you denying gender is socially constructed?

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?

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….😂

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

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.

Fucking half term

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.

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

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.

'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.

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.

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

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.

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.