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

Howseitgoin

>>>That's not what you said previously though, is it?<<<

Prove I didn't.

Anyone reading your original post will be able to conclude that you are posting from an inverted tub, whilst clapping, juggling a beach ball and barking "Arrp! Arrp!"

Just for the record (with apologies for following a derail).

A proof that God doesn't exist:

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Bad things happen in the world.

Now, either God doesn't know about these bad things, or he can't stop them, or he doesn't care about them ... otherwise there just wouldn't be these bad things. But there are.

So there is no God.

[Argument paraphrased from Epicurus, as also explained by David Hume. (Others too, of course.)]

I think the problem here is attempting to explain something non rational when we are rational beings that are limited by human perception.

From my own personal standpoint (the only one I can humanly speak some what authoritatively about) is G-d is recognising a sense of inner divinity which I can only describe as a deep sense of reverence & preciousness that my life is & responsibility to live it benevolently. You might categorise that as something most people have but from my experience of not having that understanding for most of my life then for some inexplicable reason then being privy to it, I can only say it's being intensely more so to the point that your more materially motivated identity dies & you recognise & embrace your responsibility in improving the world you live in & have immense gratitude for that opportunity.

G-d's omniscient, omnipotence and omni benevolence lives within IE individuals have the capacity of those powers within & therefore over themselves to affect change in the world.

Wow, how impressive.

Make some unfalsifiable and simplistic assumptions about God and that proves that God doesn't exist?

But I wasn't attempting to prove or disprove anything. I was pointing out that we all have opinions that are unproven, and in my opinion unprovable. Show me anyone who doesn't base their worldview on assumptions. My own is a working hypothesis, which I find more convincing than the alternatives I am aware of. I may be entirely wrong.

'bad things' from what viewpoint? That of a human living on planet earth? Whatever God is, that is not the scale it works on.

The Bible is lots of different accounts of how humans can relate to God and try to make 'things' better. Without trying to cut God down to size.

OK, Epicurus/Hume only proves that if God exists he can't be omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent given bad things happen.

That's generally taken as true of God by definition, though. If you think God does (or even might) exist, you perhaps need to ask yourself which of these three qualities - omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence - you don't think God has (hence picking a specific traditional heresy).

You admit you "may be entirely wrong". That's a good first step. Next step is to accept, when it's pointed out, that you are entirely wrong. Not many people can manage that, ime. Some do, though.

"'bad things' from what viewpoint?"

-- Not really from any particular viewpoint. Some things are just bad. For example, unnecessarily inflicted suffering. Just bad.

Yes, always a difficulty explaining something non-rational, given the rational nature of explanation itself as an endeavour.

This is something you fall foul of all the time, @Howseitgoin. It's good to read you examining the notion of explaining something non-rational. Perhaps you might think about how this might apply to your more usual attempts at non-rational explanation in other threads here on MN?

Meh, seems the rational can be rationalised into the non rational in these parts… 😉

Your condescension doesn't have any effect. It isn't convincing. Many people just as intelligent as you have a different worldview. I will continue to try to puzzle things out based on my personal experience of life and on logic. In my opinion, those omni words are an approximation; one can easily show that [a] God cannot do anything that is contrary to his own nature. It is not impossible for [a] God to have good reasons for not acting. You seem to think that life must be nice, and that suffering is a moral evil. My own experience of life is that I wouldn't change my past in order to avoid suffering – that would be to change the person that I am, and I would no longer be me. Suffering is, thank God 😉, temporary, both in my worldview and I suspect in yours.

How (and perhaps why?) on earth did a thread about the editorial policies of scientific journals and the politicisation of science turn into a discussion about religion/existence or otherwise of god?
There’s a whole other board for such debates.