> Two: “Gendered language is used in this piece for clarity and to reflect the language used in the research, but Nature recognizes that not all people who give birth identify as mothers, and that not everyone who gives birth takes on the mother role”. What?!
I think it's referring to trans men who decide to become pregnant, ie people who are physiologically capable of pregnancy, but identify as having a male gender. There's a trend to use inclusive language like "people who gave birth/menstruate/have a uterus/etc." for these sorts of situations.
The second-to-last one is a bit silly, but it's important to remember that retractions happen for reasons other than fraud. If someone made an honest mistake that led to incorrect results, we should in fact show them some compassion and work on helping them improve as a scientist for next time.
What's wrong with the last one? Their results are probably false, but it's not an a-priori ridiculous claim; looks do affect people's behavior in many unconscious ways. And regardless the subject of criticism should be the factual content of the paper, not whether the intro contains an unnecessary mention of an obvious fact.
That first article, about the falsified data in the Bloodgood lab, was so good. Oddly, it reminded me of a recent podcast, Noble, about the TriState Crematory fiasco about 20 years ago. The moral of both stories is that sometimes good people under pressure will do things you’d never imagine - I suppose an economist would shrug her shoulders and say, “you didn’t know that?” But it’s a profound lesson for most of us.
Stuart -- sounds like you are feeling a bit tired of dealing with the great unwashed public. I recommend time off to hike through the woods or hike in the mountains -- something to get you out of your office and away from your computer -- at least for a little while!!
> Two: “Gendered language is used in this piece for clarity and to reflect the language used in the research, but Nature recognizes that not all people who give birth identify as mothers, and that not everyone who gives birth takes on the mother role”. What?!
I think it's referring to trans men who decide to become pregnant, ie people who are physiologically capable of pregnancy, but identify as having a male gender. There's a trend to use inclusive language like "people who gave birth/menstruate/have a uterus/etc." for these sorts of situations.
Not all retractions are done for scientific quality. See: https://retractionwatch.com/2024/09/03/exclusive-editor-resigns-as-publisher-blocks-criticism-of-decision-to-pull-paper-on-gender-dysphoria/ (covers both retraction of my paper and attempted suppression of the back story).
My mental health is fine. I suspect the Springer-Nature manager who retracted my paper has had some regrets though.
The second-to-last one is a bit silly, but it's important to remember that retractions happen for reasons other than fraud. If someone made an honest mistake that led to incorrect results, we should in fact show them some compassion and work on helping them improve as a scientist for next time.
What's wrong with the last one? Their results are probably false, but it's not an a-priori ridiculous claim; looks do affect people's behavior in many unconscious ways. And regardless the subject of criticism should be the factual content of the paper, not whether the intro contains an unnecessary mention of an obvious fact.
Nice!
That first article, about the falsified data in the Bloodgood lab, was so good. Oddly, it reminded me of a recent podcast, Noble, about the TriState Crematory fiasco about 20 years ago. The moral of both stories is that sometimes good people under pressure will do things you’d never imagine - I suppose an economist would shrug her shoulders and say, “you didn’t know that?” But it’s a profound lesson for most of us.
Stuart -- sounds like you are feeling a bit tired of dealing with the great unwashed public. I recommend time off to hike through the woods or hike in the mountains -- something to get you out of your office and away from your computer -- at least for a little while!!