Editors of many of the world’s top scientific and medical journals are destroying or — better stated, perhaps — have destroyed the public’s trust in scientific and medical leadership because these journals can no longer be deemed objective purveyors of truth.
Nature and its associated science journals (Nature Portfolio), supposedly the most elite of the lot, are among the worst offenders. For example, in 2024 Nature endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president in part because of her support for abortion. Nature also endorsed Biden in 2020. To say the least, blatantly engaging in partisan politics is not wise for a supposedly objective science journal.
It Isn’t Just Politics
Ideological bias can also skew what should be scientifically objective studies, in favor of desired conclusions. In 2023, climate scientist Patrick T. Brown admitted in the Free Press to having tailored a paper he had co-written, to erase proper nuance. Why? He believed that Nature would not publish a paper that did not follow “correct” climate narratives all the way down the line. Brown warned that such ideological contamination of the scientific discourse has consequences:
The biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.
The editor later denied the charge. Now, in a similar vein, the Free Press has published an account by a USC chemist who issues the same complaint about ideological bias, which she finds so disturbing that she will no longer peer-review articles for Nature Portfolio publications. From, “Why I Cut Ties with Science’s Top Publisher,” by Anna Krylov:
In recent years, Nature Portfolio has sacrificed the epistemic standards of scientific publishing in unrelenting pursuit of a social justice agenda centered on diversity, equity, and inclusion. In doing so, it has lost its credibility as a truth-seeking enterprise.
On this basis, last month I publicly severed my professional ties with Nature Portfolio. Until the publisher recommits itself to merit, rigor, and objectivity, I call on my fellow scientists to do the same.
Here Are a Few Specifics
In an October 8 editorial, Nature Reviews Psychology, one of the publishing group’s journals, urged scientists to counteract Trump administration efforts by voluntarily demonstrating their “commitment to DEI.” How? By confirming “that they made efforts to cite publications from a diverse group of researchers.” In other words, authors are urged to practice “citation justice,” or to socially engineer their manuscripts’ bibliographies to promote scientists of favored identity groups, even if their work lacks the requisite merit or relevance. Choosing a study based on who wrote it rather than what it demonstrates is not science — it is propaganda in footnote form.
Bingo!
More:
As part of the practice of citation justice, Nature Portfolio encourages authors to include a diversity statement in their papers. A sample that it provides should alarm any serious scientist:
The authors acknowledge that research by scholars from historically excluded groups is systematically under-cited. Every attempt has been made to reference relevant research in a manner that is equitable in terms of racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic representation.
This is not a factual claim but an ideological pledge. The notion that “equity” demands proportional research citations across demographics is incompatible with objectivity. The proper rule is simple: Do a thorough literature search and cite the most relevant and reliable work, period. The immutable characteristics of the authors are irrelevant to the validity of their findings.
Exactly. To require such ideological litmus tests is by definition anti-science.
Ideological Pollution of Science
The many complaints made in various quarters in recent years, warning about the ideological pollution of the science establishment, have not convinced the funders or editors of these important publications to institute reform. Nor are they likely to do so unless they are forced to — which isn’t the government’s job — but the science sector’s. Krylov writes:
Government pressure might dismantle a few university DEI offices, but scientific integrity cannot be restored by decree. Editors, reviewers, and researchers must unashamedly defend the core principles of science: objectivity, universalism, open communication, and organized skepticism. The pendulum will not swing back on its own; we must push it.
If more scientists follow Krylov’s lead, perhaps these journals can regain the high regard in which they were once held. I certainly hope so. The scientific and medical sectors are vital to human thriving and civilizational progress.