On: Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Staff/editors/leadership cannot be trusted to label correctly if they are serving their own agendas

This can be boiled down to "nobody can be trusted to do anything", which is technically true.

The question is, is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior? Having a nonzero motive to misbehave isn't the same as that.

[23B1 → ImPostingOnHN]

It can be boiled down to incentive alignment - though a lot of people (falsely) believe that incentives can (or should) be tuned for social good.

> is there evidence of motives leading to actual misbehavior?

Yes. Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails.

[ImPostingOnHN → 23B1]

> It can be boiled down to incentive alignment

Sure, if "it" here means your opinion of what's important.

Incentive alignment and misalignment isn't evidence of wrongdoing, though.

> Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails.

Interesting opinion. I thank you for it and respectfully disagree.

[23B1 → ImPostingOnHN]

Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good. Your opinion is wrong.

[ImPostingOnHN → 23B1]

> Having reliable sources for scientific news and a high standard for truth therein is obviously important, moral, and good.

I'm glad we could find shared ground here. I wholeheartedly agree, even if I respectfully disagree with your totally unrelated very strong opinion that "Having a 'very strong opinion' is a strong indicator that a publication concerned with science has gone off the rails"

[23B1 → ImPostingOnHN]

It is vitally important that scientists put their duty above their burning desire to have a 'hot take', especially in medicine and public health.

This shouldn't be controversial.