Mass Resignations at Scientific Journal Over Ethically Fraught China Genetics Papers

Mass Resignations at Scientific Journal Over Ethically Fraught China Genetics Papers


Silly China, in the US we have genealogy databases like ancestry collect the DNA and we just buy the data from them.


Nah the Police collect suspect DNA then use familial links to have a high % of the overall population, so many murderers and rapists getting caught by having a cousin arrested and DNA links.


Difference being that the US doesn’t use ancestry.com to track minorities and place them inside re-education camps.


… yet.


Yet? Lmao


Not like the US hasn't rounded up and detained minorities in fairly recent history... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans


Why does everyone resign when things go wrong? We need people in such a position to stay and fight to fix it. Leaving just allows them to fill roles with Yes men to do even worse things unchecked. At the very least force them to fire you and make it loud enough for public backlash to add some checks.


There is a catch-22 there and I always wondered the same thing. I imagine it's a lot easier to explain to a potential employer that you resigned because you couldn't do something you felt was wrong, and it maybe better than trying to explain getting fired for doing something you felt was right. Those two things read very differently. Getting fired for doing something you thought was right could probably even disqualify you from minimum wage work. Don't they even quiz you for that?


Staying on makes it seem legitimate. Leaving sends a public message.


I feel like it's a valid point. But to force the magazine to take down those papers is counterproductive imo. Knowing the genetic tools for policing someone could use is far better than not knowing at all.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree Rewarding results achieved through illegal means in theory only encourages further illegal behaviors.


But I feel like the reward of publishing a paper seems nothing compared with the knowledge of their police modus operandi. They could easily stop publishing papers and we would never hear of this until a whistle blower (unlikely) or mass implementation comes which would be to late. It's good that the editors saw a pattern here and spoke against it.