Two of my colleagues brought the following article to my attention this morning. It is entitled: “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans” and it was published on August 18, 2022 as an editorial in Nature Human Behaviour.
I know what this paper is all about. It becomes very clear in the final section of this article. However, I would like to provide all of the reasons that I completely agree with the sentiments of this paper that do not include restrictive analytical guidelines that are irrelevant to scientific conclusions.
I will do this by extracting various statements from each section and providing a concrete example of why I agree with the statement. At least, that’s what I am setting out to do. It might evolve: that’s the beauty of writing as art. It is my assessment that this entire editorial is a ‘Steel Man’ argument and that many of the paragraphs themselves are demonstrably so.
On Steel Man-ning
Instead of substituting what someone else is saying with a lousy proposition, we’ll do better by reinforcing their basic argument.
This is known as the Steel Man Technique. Put simply, it’s building the best form of the other side’s argument and then engaging with it. It’s being charitable and patching up the weaknesses in the other side’s proposition so that he can bring the best counter-argument to your point of view.
It’s a simple idea, but incredibly difficult in practice.1 2 3
I agree that it is incredibly difficult in practice and it requires a certain level of intelligence and experience to accomplish this in writing. So the author(s), must have these qualities. Strangely, the authors have not had to identify themselves on this publication - this includes affiliated institutions and potential conflicts of interests. This is a first for me, because I actually face the inability to successfully complete the submission process of articles for review to certain journals, because there is a requirement as part of the online submission process to include an affiliated institution as part of a pull-down list of pre-set institutions. If one is an independent researcher as I am, you’re out of luck in many cases.
Now, the question I have is, did the authors have to provide this information like the ‘normals’ do and then NOT have to provide these details as part of the manuscript? To me, this is unheard of.
Let’s have a look at the editorial, shall we?
Steel Man Technique: evidence #1: The Title!
It begins at the beginning. I can completely agree with the sentiment of the title here. You’ve convinced me and I am engaged.
Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans
Yes, science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans, and may I add, all living creatures. Even bacteria. (For the purposes of this article, I will keep this in the human arena, like they have.) Let’s deconstruct their statement, but let’s first define science and its goals.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe4
I can agree with Wikipedia’s definition (for now anyway) and add that I believe that the goal of science is discovery. Discovery of the ways of nature, the universe and all matter-made beings therein, for example.
In the discovery process, humans have learned throughout the ages that it is best not to exploit or to use humans as part of the discovery process with respect to experimentation, because oftentimes it can create serious harm. It is thought by many to be unethical to experiment on humans. At face value, this seems like a no-brainer. But it is not.5 Incidentally, this is often how animal experimentation is justified. So again, at face value, I entirely respect and agree with the sentiment of the title.
Word choice (in writing) is an art - especially when one has a specific motive, like persuasion. For example, if one is motivated to convince an audience that it is in their best interest to behave a certain way then, then the role of word selection becomes very important. Take these two completely different ways to express the same sentiment.
A: This project is junk and we should throw it in the trash.
B: This project is delayed and has issues. Nevertheless, it may be a good idea to investigate ways to solve these issues and move forward before throwing several million dollars work of effort in the trash.6
B seems like it would be more effective with regard to successful persuasion, non?
Thus, in my opinion, the title of this editorial is both ‘an engagement lure’ and the ‘positive’ part of the reinforcement of the argument they intend to make. The ‘negative’ part is the article content with carefully placed ‘positive’ parts spliced-in.
I think it a masterpiece, in fact. Whoever wrote this, understands how to manipulate people and intended to do so, in my opinion.
On ‘The New Guidance’ aka ‘Research Ethics’
The authors have created a new guidance to prevent the stigmatization and discrimination of individuals or groups since, by their logic, ‘definitions will require frequent revisiting, as the exercise of defining gender (and sexuality) is under constant flux and evolution’. Oh. Ok. So you’re referring to the ‘revisiting’ of definitions of words like ‘vaccine’ and ‘herd immunity’? I will respectfully disagree that it is appropriate to simply ‘revisit’ (and change) the definition of a word, any word, based on its ‘better fit’ to a changing idea of a word whereby the idea is the construct of a politically-incentivized agenda.
In this guidance, we urge authors to be respectful of the dignity and rights of the human groups they study.
Quote from ‘The Guidance’ (Research Ethics): …authors should use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language in their submitted manuscripts. Authors should ensure that writing is free from stereotypes or cultural assumptions.
Absolutely agree. I would like to define a group to make my argument, if I may. People who are not injected with COVID-19 products comprise a group which many refer to, for the purposes of scientific documentation, as unvaccinated. This is a group of individuals whose dignity and rights should be not only be respected, but validated, protected and made free from any stigmatization or discrimination. I believe that this editorial can and should be used to have all published content using such words as ‘anti-vaxxer’ removed immediately as “to minimize as much as possible potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied groups in the public sphere”.
The author(s) include 2 sections in this editorial comprising 1. ‘race, ethnicity and racism’ and 2. ‘sex, gender identity/presentation and orientation’ to help ‘clarify issues with these constructs and explain that racism and discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation should have no place in science.’ Ok. Sure. But, have these things ever had a place in what I would call, true science (see definition)? Not in my experience. Why all of sudden is there a need for ‘New Guidance’? I can agree that perhaps this might play a constructive role with regard to protecting the rights of people who are not vaccinated, because this is certainly an issue in scientific publishing (where are all of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies?7), so I would suggest the inclusion of a third section comprising 3. ‘vaccination status’ (aka: that’s confidential).
It is interesting to me that this article includes the word ‘sex’ 26 times and ‘race’ 16 times, but there is nary a word addressing the potential for discrimination based on vaccination status. They do include ‘disease’ as part of the list of descriptors that refer to ‘attributes’ such as ‘race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability’, but it seems to me, that since vaccination status is such a relevant topic nowadays, that it should have been included as part of the list. Vaccination status is an attribute, is it not?
I identify as uninjected.
Steel Man Technique: evidence #2: The first 2 sentences of the 9th paragraph.
Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good.
In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.
I agree completely with the sentiment of the first sentence - the ‘positive’ part. The second sentence, however, is the ‘negative’ part and if nothing else, it certainly comes with questions. It implies that publication of certain information can be harmful to certain people. Now, I would never have questioned this sentiment a few years ago. But as we all know, things have changed. But for now, let’s not question its validity.
But, I would like to know 4 things:
Where the ‘cut-off’ line: what gets censored?
Who makes the decisions to censor?
What precisely will this censorship be based on?
Will vaccination status not be considered?
Let’s extend this to a real world envisionment. If in the future, we are not allowed as scientists, to distinguish between individuals based on demographic data (and this does include vaccination status), then how will we ever be able to draw proper conclusions from the data? Are we going to be told that we cannot distinguish between 2 groups of individuals where one is vaccinated and the other is not because we risk offending one group? Questions to ponder.
Science, as it were, would get obliterated, in this case.
Steel Man Technique: evidence #3: The first 2 sentences of the 12th paragraph
Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society.
With this [new] guidance, we take a step towards countering this.
Historically, I would say that you could probably find examples to support this first sentence. However, true science would never be capable of this due to its ethos. True science would be incapable of perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society, in my opinion. It sounds like the authors might be referring to scientism.
I am familiar with an excellent current example that provides evidence to support the validity of this sentence. Please go to my Substack article entitled: “Call for retraction of paper entitled: "Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on infectious disease dynamics: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission"authored by David N. Fisman, Afia Amoako and Ashleigh R. Tuite. Also please go to Byram Bridle’s Substack article entitled: “Fiction Disguised as Science to Promote Hatred” for more information on this particular paper.
Will the ‘New Guidance’ address this pressing issue? It is a matter of great concern to millions of humans.
Steel Man Technique: evidence #4: The first 2 sentences of the 13th paragraph.
Researchers should be free to pursue lines of inquiry and the communication of knowledge and ideas without fear of repression or censorship.
At the same time, they have the ethical obligation to uphold intellectual integrity and avoid preventable harms that may arise in the course of research or its communication.
WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRESSION OR CENSORSHIP.
But what about Dr. Pierre Kory’s paper on IVM? What about me and Dr. McCullough’s paper on Myocarditis? I can assure you that all of the senior researchers and medical doctors attempting to publish data that questions certain edicts of the COVID-19 era, are facing extreme censorship, and in my case was, and continues to be, baseless. Dr. McCullough and I are still waiting for a reason from the publisher or the editor of the journal for the uninvited withdrawal of our published work. It did not offend any individual or group, I assure you.
I imagine that perhaps we, as devoted researchers, scientists and medical doctors, have a shared definition of ‘intellectual integrity’, and that this shared definition is dissimilar to that of the publishers censoring our work. What other conclusion could we reach as we fumble around in dark publication limbo-land?
On harms
Harms can arise as a direct result of the conduct of research — for instance, injury to human participants in the course of participating in a research project.
Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. I could keep clearing my throat. ‘Research should respect the dignity and rights of human research participants; of individuals or groups connected either with the research participants or the research topic; and of the communities in which research is carried out.’ Indeed, Mr. Incognito. Indeed.
On walking on eggshells to prevent harm. To eggshells.
Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms.
I personally prefer to use the word ‘gender’ when describing the difference between males and females when I write scientific papers.8 9 Personally, because of the psycho-social associations with the word ‘sex’ since it is also a short-from noun used to describe sexual intercourse, I prefer (this is my personal, carefully-selected, non-offensive choice) to avoid confusion and simply choose to use the word ‘gender’ when describing demographic data.
‘Gender’ refers to a set of cultural norms and expectations and not a ‘biologically defined variable’. Such norms are not fixed but evolve across time and space. As such, definitions will require frequent revisiting, as the exercise of defining gender (and sexuality) is under constant flux and evolution, as is the area of study in itself.
I was under the impression that I could choose to use the word ‘gender’ to indicate whether or not an individual is a male or a female based on things like chromosomes and reproductive organs. The definition of gender below does have discern between males and females based on reproductive organs and functions.
I prefer to keep using the word ‘gender’ to discern between males and females. Thank you. Individual preference.
In their list of 8 references, where the first 3 are edicts of the UN General Assembly, they also include the Declaration of Helsinki. 10 11
The Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) is considered to be the property of all humanity and maintains the right of the individual to informed consent where ‘the participant's welfare must always take precedence over the interests of science and society (Article 5), and ethical considerations must always take precedence over laws and regulations (Article 9)’.12
I possess this DoH property and I maintain my right to informed consent, body autonomy and the right to decide and to choose what is best for me. Although I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Incognito to help us all with his ‘New Guidance’, I think we’re doing alright. I really do.
As the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.'“
Me ‘tinks ‘tis sometin’ afoul at play ‘ere.
https://constantrenewal.com/steel-man
Friedersdorf, Conor (26 June 2017). "The Highest Form of Disagreement". The Atlantic.
Messinger, Chana (7 December 2012). "Knocking Down a Steel Man: How to Argue Better". The Merely Real (blog).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/06/12/willowbrook-scandal-hepatitis-experiments-hideous-truths-of-testing-vaccines-on-humans/
https://simplicable.com/en/steel-man
Lyons-Weiler J, Thomas P. Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(22):8674. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228674.
Rose, J. 2021, Critical Appraisal of VAERS Pharmacovigilance: Is
the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) a Functioning Pharmacovigilance System? Science, Public Health Policy & the Law
Volume 3:100–129.
Rose, J. 2021. A report on US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) biologicals. Science, Public Health Policy & the Law. 2:59-80.
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 310, 2191–2194 (2013).
Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. The Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ. 2007 Sep 29;335(7621):624-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39339.610000.BE. PMID: 17901471; PMCID: PMC1995496.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
There's even a discriminatory bias in the term "unvaccinated", as if humans somehow default to a "vaccinated" state.
We were born this way. It's like the presumption that "conventional" food is grown in the ordinary manner, whereas "organic" is something unusual and vaguely suspect.
Glad you screenshotted the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "gender" before it gets cancelled.