Nature Has “Abandoned Science for Social Justice” Says Richard Dawkins
Top scientific journal Nature has “abandoned science for social justice”, Richard Dawkins has said as he backed a letter written by Chemistry Professor Anna Krylov which accused the journal of “social engineering”. The Times has more.
The criticism of Springer Nature group, which publishes the journal, was made by Anna Krylov, an American professor who has been a supporter of President Trump’s drive to stop American universities from promoting diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) in their admissions policies.
Richard Dawkins, the British evolutionary biologist, backed Krylov and said that too many journals were “favouring authors because of their identity group rather than the excellence and importance of their science”.
The Nature group has said that seeking to include a broad range of perspectives from “a wider spectrum” of researchers can create “a more informed foundation for scholarly work”.
Krylov, a Chemistry Professor at the University of Southern California (USC), said she had been invited to act as a peer-reviewer — a scientist asked to provide independent scrutiny — of a study being published in the journal Nature Communications.
In an open letter to bosses at Springer Nature, she said the topic was “within my field of expertise” and that she would “normally welcome the opportunity”, but asked if she had been contacted “because of my expertise in the subject matter or because of my reproductive organs”.
Krylov cited a pledge from Springer Nature in 2019 to “take action to improve diversity and inclusion” in their journals, asking editors to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers”.
She cited guidance from the Nature Human Behaviour journal from 2022 that suggested some research should not be published if there is a risk that it “undermines the dignity or rights of specific groups”.
She also cited the use of “citation diversity statements”, where scientists can include in their studies a declaration pledging to cite research “in a manner that is equitable in terms of racial, ethnic, gender and geographical representation”.
Many research bodies have said the drive to boost diversity in academia is not born out of tokenism or political correctness. A report in 2022 by UK Research and Innovation said that ensuring scientific studies were not overwhelmingly produced by people from any one background was “essential to achieving high quality scientific outputs” and to making sure that “research findings are… relevant and address the needs of different communities”.
Krylov alleged, however, that “the Nature group has abandoned its mission in favour of advancing a social justice agenda”, accusing it of implementing “policies that have sacrificed merit in favour of identity-based criteria” and of “inject[ing] social engineering into its author guidelines and publishing process”.
Reposting Krylov’s letter on X, Dawkins said: “Nature used to be the world’s most prestigious science journals”, but claimed it was now among many who placed emphasis on the background of authors rather than only on “the excellence… of their science”.
Mario Juric, an Astronomy Professor from the University of Washington, Seattle, said he was asked in 2023 by the Nature Astronomy journal “to suggest alternate reviewers from ‘underrepresented communities’”. He declined and told the journal’s editors: “While I know your publisher’s intentions are good… mixing identity in the review process does nothing to strengthen it.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Top scientific journal Nature has “abandoned science for social justice”, Richard Dawkins has said.
Yes, Richard, I will say this again: the great mistake you made was the assumption that when people abandon a form of religion – Christianity in Europe – then they will embrace the cool, unbiased, rational, logical mindset of science.
No, they don’t. They just replace it with another set of beliefs. Wokery, Marxism, transgenderism, whatever.
When you abandon the “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love” God, then this is what you end up with.
Partly this, yes, but also “social justice” is a handy route to money, power and prestige. I don’t think for a moment that all those calling for “social justice” are in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of whatever convenient “victim” groups they pretend to care about.
Social justice is awarding justice to victim group du jour, by heaping injustice on others.
“No, they don’t. They just replace it with another set of beliefs. Wokery, Marxism, transgenderism, whatever.” There you go again with another of your statements so sweeping and generalised that even Stevie Wonder wouldn’t struggle pointing out the glaring inaccuracies therein. I’m not religious, never have been, and I’m not onboard with any of those ideologies you mention. I’m pretty sure countless other non-religious peeps could say the same. Why do you assume it must be one or the other? Like anybody who isn’t your type of Christian is doomed to fall prey to the above? Speaking of ‘types’ of Christians, shall we talk about the Church of England, or there’s the Catholic Church? Shall we talk about how they DO embrace those ideologies of which you speak, therefore debunking your assertion straight away? So is being a Christian and non-Woke mutually exclusive? There’s enough evidence all over the shop, much has been covered on here numerous times. I’m really not sure why you’re so intent on seeing everything in such ‘black and white’ terms, with such a rigid worldview that bears no resemblance to the reality. The facts contradict your narrative effortlessly. I guess it’s the usual default position… Read more »
Just my opinion. Don’t take it to heart.
For an even more comprehensive list of my personality defects, please consult my wife.
I’m taking nothing to heart, merely stating that your entire post is a contradiction in terms. Please take up your issues about all things woke, trans etc with the Church of England and Catholic Church, because those particular Christians do rather inconveniently disprove and debunk the point you’re attempting to make. It’s what happens when you deal with people as individuals and don’t tar great swathes of us with the same brush.
Whilst I largely agree with you, I do also see MMs’ point.
Wokery, transgender activism, Net Zero, Marxism and socialism can and have been described as religions. Their adherents believe in them wholeheartedly, and no amount of logic and reasoning could dissuade them. It is a faith of sorts. Hopefully a lot of the flock will grow out of them as they grow older and wiser, which I’m sure has happened to some followers of the various religions.
As with people who have blind faith in a god, and who are happy to blindly follow the preachings of holy books and preachers, you cannot win a debate or argument with their followers because they will never answer the question, and will twist and turn until it comes back on you, the questioner, with double-speak.
I would go as far with MM’s point by saying that most of the followers of the above ideologies are probably not religious. I’ve only got personal experience to go by there, but I think it’s probably correct in general. That doesn’t necessarily mean that were they religious they wouldn’t also follow those ideologies.
“Wokery, transgender activism, Net Zero, Marxism and socialism can and have been described as religions.”
Of course they are religions.
What is the scientific/logical/rational basis for the belief that a man can become a woman? There isn’t one. It is purely an article of faith.
“I would go as far with MM’s point by saying that most of the followers of the above ideologies are probably not religious.”
They claim not to be religious, but they are.
It’s a bit like North Korea. On paper atheistic but the picture of the Glorious Leader is on the wall in every home and they worship him.
Personally I think Richard Dawkins is also religious, clearly the idea of God keeps bothering him a lot.
I’ve no idea how many Christians are also onboard with the aforementioned ideologies but I’ll bet it’s lots. Remember also the C of E’s support for BLM ( undeniably a Marxist movement ) and all this ‘reparations/slavery/anti-racist’ cobblers? And that’s before we get to gay marriages, female Archbishops and agender, cross-dressing goblins decorating Canterbury Cathedral with graffiti ‘art’. To me, the C of E tick all the boxes in being fully paid up, weapons grade woketard *Christians*. So to make out like Christianity is the be all and end all ( without which we are all dooomed! ) and Christians are completely separate from all the current fads/ideologies being pushed on us is 100% false.
I think I’ve provided enough supporting evidence now ( hasn’t much of this previously been featured and discussed on here, anyway? ) and shan’t labour the point further, but anyone who wants to disagree with me is obviously a denialist. Truth hurts for some, I guess…
Don’t assume that faithful Christians are on board with many of the pronouncements of the Church of England.
Many of us are patiently enduring the current Ecclesiastical brain farts and sticking to the eternal wisdom.
When you abandon the “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love” Allah PBUH.”
Yes, yes… do tell.
Professor Krylov is a Heroine of Chemistry – 1980s emigre from the old Soviet Union, so well acquainted with being on the receiving end of the Marxist playbook.
“While I know your publisher’s intentions are good …”
Er what? The intention is to create permanent groups (so called “communities”) of victims, most of them don’t regard themselves as victims, have no desire to be so regarded, are aware of the negative consequences of being granted special status, and have no desire to be assigned to a particular “community”, other than that of scientist.
Gee, d’ya think, Richard?
It’s not just DIE Springer Nature Group promotes. The Group, responsible for dozens of “scientific” publications, also ”has its own corporate net-zero commitments”.
Yet another organ whose trust is broken
Another institution marched through.