The paper basically claims that science could be a whole lot better if there were more transgenders, more women, more homosexual, and more "people of color" – in other words, a whole lot less white people. With primarily white-looking people at the scientific helm, science is only able to look at a "narrow slice of humanity," the paper insists.
"Widening the focus is essential if publicly funded research is to protect and preserve its mandate to work to improve society," it states.
"For example, a high proportion of the research that comes out of the Western world uses tissue and blood from white individuals to screen drugs and therapies for a diverse population. Yet it is well known that people from different ethnic groups can have different susceptibility to some diseases."
But wait, can't existing scientists simply evaluate a greater diversity of tissue samples themselves in order to perform a wider cross-section of scientific research? Of course they can. But Nature also wants to see the ethnic and gender identities of scientists themselves change because, again, white people are bad.
"This argument is somewhat like stating that we ought to be using more dogs rather than lab rats to test various drugs, and therefore we need more puppy scientists," points out Ben Shapiro from The Daily Wire about the illogical leap that Nature makes in suggesting that the demographic makeup of scientists needs to change in order for science to become "better."
Nature seems to be abandoning all semblances of scientific integrity
Shapiro also points out how nearly nothing in this supposedly "scientific" editorial actually relies on science. It's little more than a gobbledygook mash-up of hysterical leftist identity politics posing as "science" – not to mention an overtly racist proposition that, in typical form, targets white people for elimination from the sciences.
In making the claim that certain groups of people are "under-represented" in the scientific world, this ridiculous editorial jumps to the conclusion that it's because these minority groups have somehow been "marginalized by academic culture" – again providing no actual science to back it up.
The reader is left to assume that it is only sociological barriers that create disparities in academic culture, even though there are many factors governing why some people enter the field of science while other do not.
Among these are personal choice, meaning some people simply choose to pursue other academic endeavors than science, thus lessening their presence and "representation" in the scientific field.
But the Nature editorial makes no mention of this, nor does it offer any alternative possibilities that don't involve implications of racism and "white supremacy" as reasons why there are more white-looking people in science.
As if this isn't bad enough, the op-ed then jumps to proposing affirmative action-type recruitment policies to draw more non-white males into science, because doing so is somehow "moral and ethical" – two more unscientific terms that are more agenda-driven than anything else.
"There is no evidence whatsoever that racial diversity contributes to scientific investigation and discovery," explains Shapiro. "But that’s okay. Nature says so. After all, 'The lack of diversity in science is everyone's problem. Everyone has a responsibility to look around them, to see the problem for what it is, and to act – not just to assume it is someone else's job to fix it."
"Or, alternatively, Nature could be scientific, and investigate the actual causes of ethnic disparity in the sciences. Nature could even make a scientific case why diversity in science matters. But they won't bother with any of that. Better to print identity politics slogans in a leading science journal than actually bother with science."
Read JunkScienceWatch.com for more coverage of incredibly stupid ideas pretending to be "science."
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
