In this episode of "When Woke Sticks Its Nose Into Science"
As the woke insanity of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) continues to die a deserved death during President Donald Trump's second term in office, some institutions die a slower, more painful death than others.
This article is about one of those examples.
Nature Reviews Psychology, a prestigious science journal, announced in October that it would “explicitly encourage” (read: "pressure") contributors to include a “citation diversity statement” — a pledge to reference a "demographically balanced mix of researchers" and confront alleged race and gender “imbalances” in citations.
In an exclusive editorial in the journal, the editors (I presume) laid out their intent:
R]esearchers can move scholarship away from narratives that perpetuate societal biases by writing inclusively. [W]e hope that encouraging authors to think about citation diversity will prompt them to engage in concerted and sustained efforts to educate themselves about the relevant work of underrepresented scholars.
The absurd move was a breaking point for scholar Anna Krylov, a distinguished University of Southern California chemist and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, who fired off an open letter announcing she had cut ties with Nature’s journals entirely.
Before we get to Ms. Krylov and her letter, let's first check out the “citation diversity statement,” via the journal, which, unsurprisingly, takes a shot at Trump and his administration (emphasis, mine):
Nature Reviews Psychology is encouraging authors to include a citation diversity statement to draw attention to citation imbalances and confirm that they made efforts to cite publications from a diverse group of researchers.
Since taking office in January of this year, the Trump administration has taken actions to limit — if not outright dismantle — diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts in federally funded science and academia in the US. Grants for research that explicitly study DEI issues (such as inequality) or that include a DEI component (such as an explicit aim to test diverse cohorts) have been paused or cancelled, and universities have been threatened with losing federal funding if they ‘promote DEI.
Some scientific agencies and university administrators are complying with the Trump administration by, for example, asking grant applicants to remove DEI aspects from their proposals or eliminating DEI-relevant funding initiatives, effectively eliminating institutional support for DEI.
[Our] aim of asking authors to consider citation diversity is not to require a specific level of representation for different groups in the reference list. Rather, we hope that our request serves as a nudge for authors to slow down and take the time to survey the field prior to writing, rather than relying on the same articles (and by extension, authors) that they have historically cited and therefore ‘come to mind’ first.
"Nudge"? Cute. "Pressure" — including from "woke" peers — is more like it.
Anyway, in other words, Nature Reviews Psychology is hoping its "end-around" will not only encourage contributors to ignore the administration's efforts to stomp out DEI, but perhaps also hopes the administration itself doesn't come after it or call it out.
ALSO CHECK OUT: Send in the Clowns – NAS Presents Hacks to Challenge Trump Climate Policy
Intellectual Diversity: Abhorred by the Hypocritical Left Like Nobody's Business
This Takes Us Back to Anna Krylov
In her aforementioned open letter, written under the headline, "Why I no longer engage with Nature publishing group," Krylov explained why she was having none of it. Addressing Dr. Christian Kuttner, an editor for the publishing group, she wrote, in part (emphasis, mine):
Dear Dr. Kuttner:
I am writing in response to your invitation to review the manuscript titled “Large circular dichroism in the total photoemission yield of free chiral nanoparticles created by a pure electric dipole effect” submitted for publication in Nature Communications.
Although the topic is within my field of expertise and I would normally welcome the opportunity to contribute to peer review, I must decline. Furthermore, I have decided not to engage with journals belonging to the Nature group in any professional capacity in the future because the group has adopted policies and practices that are incompatible with the mission of a scientific publisher.
[...]
Unfortunately, the Nature group has abandoned its mission in favor of advancing a social justice agenda. The group has institutionalized censorship, implemented policies that have sacrificed merit in favor of identity-based criteria, and injected social engineering into its author guidelines and publishing process. The result is that papers published in Nature journals can no longer be regarded as rigorous science.
Amen, squared.
The Bottom Line
When ideology — notably, DEI and so-called "social justice" — replaces merit and objectivity, nobody wins. Allowing "equity" to metastasize in science and other applied fields where accurate results, competence, and consequences matter is potentially a recipe for disaster.
And in this case, when grants and publications demand DEI statements that measure ideological groupthink rather than discovery potential, scientists are pressured to spend time demonstrating "political virtue" rather than pursuing rigorous scientific exploration and inquiry.
While the renowned Ms. Anna Krylov is just one example of exemplary courage, let us hope that more courageous professionals follow in her footsteps — in multiple fields of endeavor.
