Viewpoint: ‘Who gets to decide what causes harm?’ Why Nature’s new editorial guidelines are problematic

Credit: Nature
Credit: Nature

This new article in Nature Human Behavior Is well-intentioned, aiming to purge bigotry from science, but goes way over the top in three ways. First, it claims that science is complicit in structural racism at present. That’s not true, though in the past some scientists and institutions were guilty of this. Second, it assumes that papers submitted to the journal are going to be rife with racism, bigotry, misogyny, and anti-LGBTQ+ bias that will cause “harm”, and therefore authors must be warned in a long document about their biases and how to avoid expressing them. The piece thus gives a long set of rules that actually conform to woke practice. Third, it explicitly states that even papers with publishable scientific results can be rejected if the facts presented are deemed liable to cause harm. And “harm” is often in the gut of the beholder. 

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

This is the problem: who gets to decide what is “stigmatizing” or “harmful”? Clearly such statements can be inadvertent or unconscious. Presumably the editors could decide, but they of course will be very responsive to objections from other scientists, from the public—indeed, from anybody. But it’s already too late to ask for rational consideration.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-09-16-at-2.26.42-PM
Viewpoint: How to ecologically damage America’s forests: Ban glyphosate
Screenshot-2026-09-20-at-9.03.54-AM
From Malaysia to the world: A pioneering science communicator reimagines global science communication for a digital age
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-17-2026-12_28_43-PM
Vitamin D, omega-3 fish oil and glucosamine supplements could cause brain damage 
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-09-20-at-4.31.28-PM
White House drafting executive order to control what OMB Director Vought claims are “woke” NIH science grants
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-20-2026-04_22_32-PM
What’s Trump’s ‘AI Force’? Administration rushes to announce ill-defined watchdog agency and czar amid criticism of its resistance to curb AI acceleration
Screenshot-2026-08-12-at-11.31.46-AM
AI is helping develop new vaccines
Screenshot-2026-09-14-at-4.31.14-PM
Viewpoint: What’s the likely impact when the EPA loosens rules limiting methane pollution from oil and gas wells?
Screenshot-2026-08-19-at-6.19.42-PM
Facts & Fallacies podcast: 'Regenerative farming'? RFK Jr.’s federal push romanticizes the past and risks food security
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-18-2026-10_49_24-AM
‘Symptom borrowing’: Young people are copying health problems they see on TikTok
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-28-2026-03_33_46-PM
Viewpoint: Bad science—Five bogus Trump administration claims about vaccines and autism
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-9-2026-02_48_24-PM
Viewpoint: Trump-RFK Jr. report on “Gender Ideology & Left-wing Ideology’ targets LGBTQ community—and science
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.