NIH文章：James Watson tells the inconvenient truth

[Yellen]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18440722/

James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: faces the consequences

Abstract
Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as well as numerous public condemnations from the media and the scientific community. They justified these sanctions to the public through an abuse of trust, by suggesting that intelligence testing is a meaningless and discredited science, that there is no data to support Dr. Watson's comments, that genetic causes of group differences in intelligence are falsified logically and empirically, and that such differences are already accounted for by known environment factors. None of these arguments are correct, much less beyond legitimate scientific debate. Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors. The media and the larger scientific community punished Dr. Watson for violating a social and political taboo, but fashioned their case to the public in terms of scientific ethics. This necessitated lying to the public about numerous scientific issues to make Watson appear negligent in his statements; a gross abuse of valuable and fragile public trust in scientific authority. Lies and a threatening, coercive atmosphere to free inquiry and exchange are damaging to science as an institution and to scientists as individuals, while voicing unfashionable hypotheses is not damaging to science. The ability to openly voice and argue ideas in good faith that are strange and frightening to some is, in fact, integral to science. Those that have participated in undermining this openness and fairness have therefore damaged science, even while claiming to protect it with the same behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

[wh]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18440722/

James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: faces the consequences

Abstract
Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as well as numerous public condemnations from the media and the scientific community. They justified these sanctions to the public through an abuse of trust, by suggesting that intelligence testing is a meaningless and discredited science, that there is no data to support Dr. Watson's comments, that genetic causes of group differences in intelligence are falsified logically and empirically, and that such differences are already accounted for by known environment factors. None of these arguments are correct, much less beyond legitimate scientific debate. Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors. The media and the larger scientific community punished Dr. Watson for violating a social and political taboo, but fashioned their case to the public in terms of scientific ethics. This necessitated lying to the public about numerous scientific issues to make Watson appear negligent in his statements; a gross abuse of valuable and fragile public trust in scientific authority. Lies and a threatening, coercive atmosphere to free inquiry and exchange are damaging to science as an institution and to scientists as individuals, while voicing unfashionable hypotheses is not damaging to science. The ability to openly voice and argue ideas in good faith that are strange and frightening to some is, in fact, integral to science. Those that have participated in undermining this openness and fairness have therefore damaged science, even while claiming to protect it with the same behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

2008年的文章。这位Jason Malloy后来怎样？

[Yellen]

2008年的文章。这位Jason Malloy后来怎样？

不知道，这里有全文

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7708001540

[kakeru]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18440722/

James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: faces the consequences

Abstract
Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as well as numerous public condemnations from the media and the scientific community. They justified these sanctions to the public through an abuse of trust, by suggesting that intelligence testing is a meaningless and discredited science, that there is no data to support Dr. Watson's comments, that genetic causes of group differences in intelligence are falsified logically and empirically, and that such differences are already accounted for by known environment factors. None of these arguments are correct, much less beyond legitimate scientific debate. Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors. The media and the larger scientific community punished Dr. Watson for violating a social and political taboo, but fashioned their case to the public in terms of scientific ethics. This necessitated lying to the public about numerous scientific issues to make Watson appear negligent in his statements; a gross abuse of valuable and fragile public trust in scientific authority. Lies and a threatening, coercive atmosphere to free inquiry and exchange are damaging to science as an institution and to scientists as individuals, while voicing unfashionable hypotheses is not damaging to science. The ability to openly voice and argue ideas in good faith that are strange and frightening to some is, in fact, integral to science. Those that have participated in undermining this openness and fairness have therefore damaged science, even while claiming to protect it with the same behavior.

PubMed Disclaimer

这时候不提“follow the science"了？

[VladPutin]

啥狗屁NIH文章，你丫上过学没？ 居然不知道Pubmed是NIH的一个文章数据库，提供文章的摘要和全文链接。这篇文章发表在臭名昭著的Medical Hypotheses。全文在此。

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

看看Google AI是怎么评价这本期刊的：

Medical Hypotheses has a controversial reputation for publishing radical, speculative, and unproven theories, including fringe ideas like AIDS denialism, which led to controversy and changes in its leadership and review policies in 2010. While intended as a forum for unconventional ideas and to foster debate, its editorial review system has been criticized for its lack of traditional peer review, which some see as a path to pseudoscience, though others argue it allows for revolutionary concepts that traditional peer review might reject.

Key Aspects of its Reputation:

Forum for Speculative Ideas:

The journal was founded to provide a platform for novel, untested, and potentially revolutionary ideas in medicine that might be overlooked by more conservative journals.

Controversial Content:
Medical Hypotheses has been known to publish provocative papers, including those considered by many to be pseudoscience, most notably papers promoting AIDS denialism.

Editorial vs. Peer Review:
The journal uses an editorial review system rather than traditional peer review, where editors select content based on its potential to foster debate, even if it lacks strong evidence.

Past Controversy and Leadership Changes:
The publication of the AIDS denialism paper led to a backlash, resulting in Elsevier forcing a change in the journal's editor and the implementation of a peer review process in an attempt to gain more legitimacy.

Continued Debate on its Value:
The journal's approach remains a point of debate, with proponents arguing it serves a vital function in the scientific process by bringing radical ideas to light and critics warning of its potential to legitimize pseudoscientific claims.