[quotemstr]

I'm almost wondering whether Quillette should start a scientific publication arm for unsafe research. The open access model has low overhead, and it might be possible to allow researchers to publish under pseudonyms while upholding publication standards.

[ratsmack]

And why would publishing controversial subjects be "unsafe"? Isn't one of the merits of ones learning is to have an open mind to new ideas? Why is it that when something is published that a specific group disagrees with or has "feelings" that are troubling do we feel the need to appease them to no ends... I find this troubling myself.

[mirimir]

From the article:

> At this point, faced with career-threatening reprisals from their own departmental colleagues and the diversity committee at Penn State, as well as displeasure from the NSF, Sergei and his colleague who had done computer simulations for us withdrew their names from the research.

That strikes me as pretty damn "unsafe".

[trolleyhacker]

From the article:

> Steinberger replied later that day. Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died.” Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated.

It's sad that these lunatics have the power to do these things, but that's why people appease them.

[CM30]

The thing is, a lot of these people don't have the power to do the things they claim. Or at least, they'd be perfectly replaceable by those who'd do a better job.

Indeed, the only reason this sort of crap happens is because organisations and companies don't have the guts to tell the moral police to sod off. If they did, and their tactics stopped working, many of these issues would go away.

[waterhouse]

I'm guessing quotemstr used "unsafe" to mean "unsafe to your career as a researcher if you try to publish it in conventional universities".

[haihaibye]

>> why would publishing controversial subjects be "unsafe"? ... Why is it that when something is published that a specific group disagrees with or has "feelings" that are troubling do we feel the need to appease them to no ends

Because humans are coalition forming apes, with a brain built to survive in that environment not to perceive truth.