Connect with us

Opinion

Premier Scientific Journal Nature Takes on ‘Climate of Fear’ Surrounding Research on Sex and Genr

Published

8 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

“These articles are using phrases like ‘a person’s sex assigned at birth’. I find that phrase amusing. I don’t think sex is assigned at birth. Biological sex is a fact. It’s not assigned. It’s observed.”

Nature, one of the world’s premier scientific journals, has acknowledged the importance of studying sex and gender differences and officially denounced the “climate of fear and reticence” that is stymying research on the topic.

To that end, the journal in May launched “a collection of opinion articles” on the topic to be published over the coming months to foster honest and courageous discussions on a topic that many scientists shy away from due to fears of professional and personal repercussions.

“Some scientists have been warned off studying sex differences by colleagues. Others, who are already working on sex or gender-related topics, are hesitant to publish their views,” read the editorial introducing the series.

“…In time, we hope this collection will help to shape research, and provide a reference point for moderating often-intemperate debates.”

Headlines that kicked off the series include “Neglecting sex and gender in research is a public-health risk,” “Male–female comparisons are powerful in biomedical research” and “Heed lessons from past studies involving transgender people: first, do no harm.”

What the collection of articles represents and whether it will ease tensions surrounding this area of research remains to be seen.

Jeffrey Mogil, a neuroscientist and pain researcher at Mcgill University, as well as the co-author of one of the articles in Nature’s sex and gender series, told The College Fix there is an effort underway in biological research to do away with or minimize the importance of the concept of sex and sex as a binary variable.

This is problematic, Mogil said in a recent telephone interview, because sex in mammals is “either binary or it rounds to binary and in doing so it always has been useful and continues to be and any conception of it that isn’t binary would then impose practical difficulties on how science is done.”

Moreover, he noted, discarding the notion of binary sex in mammals would set back important advancements in how many biomedical researchers now do their work.

“There are sex differences in all kinds of traits that we’re interested in and where we didn’t know they existed,” Mogil said. “The reason we didn’t know they existed [is] because until extremely recently, essentially all biology pre-clinical experiments were done with males only.”

“Since regulatory agencies, funding agencies, have demanded that people start using both sexes [in research],” he said, “lo and behold, we’re finding sex differences.”

“We’re finding that what we thought was the biology of a thing was only the biology of the thing in males and the female biology is completely different,” he added.

“This is in our minds,” he said, “an incredible scientific advance and that advance is at risk of stopping and reverting if, you know, people start to believe…dividing animals into males and females is inappropriate.”

Although Mogil stated he did not know how Nature made editorial decisions regarding the selection of articles for their sex and gender collection, he said that he felt the article he and his co-authors wrote was intended to defend the status quo against those “advocating…either that gender is much more important than sex or that sex is more complicated than people have made it seem.”

The College Fix reached out to a senior communications manager from Springer Nature in early June regarding the selection process for the series, as well as how sex was presented in some of the other commentaries, but did not receive a response.

Daniel Barbash, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at Cornell University, was more skeptical than Mogil of Nature’s sex and gender op-ed collection when he spoke to The College Fix in a late-May phone interview.

Although he said he generally held a positive view of the article Mogil co-authored and appreciated that it explicitly stated “there are only two sex categories in mammals,” he noted that he also felt the authors of other commentaries in the series were to some extent “further conflating sex and gender.”

“There’s little things that sometimes give the game away,” he said. “These articles are using phrases like ‘a person’s sex assigned at birth’. I find that phrase amusing. I don’t think sex is assigned at birth. Biological sex is a fact. It’s not assigned. It’s observed.”

“[For] the vast majority of humans, from the moment they’re born,” he said, “there is zero ambiguity whether they’re a male or a female.”

Furthermore, the “overall tone” of the collection, Barbash said, was that “there needs to be more research on gender variation and that there is more complexity to biological sex than a binary.”

According to Barbash, neither of these notions are “universally accepted” among biologists.

He said he believes the series has “the potential to drive funding agencies and other agencies that are involved in the intersection between politics and research in a particular direction that I don’t think would always be helpful.”

“I don’t think any serious biologist would deny that sex is a hugely important factor in both basic research and in biomedical research,” said Barbash. “Of course, any study on the effect of drugs should be tested separately in males and females, otherwise it’s a hugely confounding factor if you ignore that.”

Yet, he said, “the notion that we need to do the same thing for gender…is really not supported,” and may not be very feasible.

“Half the population is male and half the population is female,” Barbash said. “We see all kinds of estimates for gender nonconforming and transgender individuals but, no doubt, they’re much less frequent than males and females.”

On account of this, he said, even if research questions regarding gender divergence and transgender individuals are worthwhile, “it would be problematic, for example, to necessitate that all NIH studies of humans include males, females and gender nonconforming individuals or transgender individuals.”

However, he said, he feared “this series of articles could have that kind of impact in influencing policy.”

Originally published by The College Fix. Republished with permission.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Don’t use Alberta’s Heritage Fund to pick ‘winners and losers’

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Lennie Kaplan

During the mid- to late-1990s, Alberta taxpayers lost more than $2 billion from these failed loans, guarantees and share purchases in major business projects.

Remember the old adage from the writer and philosopher George Santayana that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

At a recent Calgary Chamber of Commerce event, Premier Danielle Smith indicated the Alberta government is looking at using Heritage Fund assets “to assist in de-risking projects that were finding it difficult to get financing.” This signals a return to the Alberta government’s industrial policy of the 1970s and 1980s of being in the business of being in business and government picking “winners and losers” as Premier Klein famously said.

A remembrance of the past is in order, so we aren’t condemned to repeat it. Between 1973 and 1992, the Alberta government took a very active role in cultivating economic development. The approach was highly interventionist and involved direct financial assistance through direct loans (even ones issued though the Heritage Fund), loan guarantees and share purchases. The risks attached to these transactions, particularly in a highly cyclical and volatile economy such as Alberta, were significant, generally unknown at the outset, and largely open-ended.

Sure, there were some notable exceptions, but the high degree of risk of direct intervention in the private sector was illustrated by the fact that during the mid- to late-1990s, Alberta taxpayers lost more than $2 billion from these failed loans, guarantees and share purchases in major business projects.

Most notable were losses incurred on such high-profile business projects as Novatel Communications ($556.0 million), the Lloydminster Bi-provincial Upgrader ($392.5 million), the Millar Western Pulp Mill ($244.2 million), Gainers ($208.3 million), the Magnesium Company of Canada ($164.0 million) and the Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mills ($155.0 million).

The premier makes a valid point that financial markets may be averse to financing large business projects because of the risks associated with intrusive federal climate change policies and regulations. Thus, the argument is there’s a need for the provincial government to get involved in financing market failures in the capital markets.

However, from our remembrance of the past practises, raiding the Heritage Fund to pick “winners and losers” is the wrong prescription to solving this problem. Let’s use the tried and true policies of cutting taxes and streamlining regulations to attract more investment capital to Alberta to support business projects. And let’s focus on building a Heritage Fund of $250 billion to $400 billion that will help secure our province’s fiscal and economic future and the future for our children and grandchildren.

Continue Reading

CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency

Klaus Schwab pushes ‘fourth industrial revolution’ at WEF’s ‘Summer Davos’ opening

Published on

Chinese Premier Li Qiang (R) shakes hands with founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab kicks off the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, aka “Summer Davos,” in Dalian, China, saying that economic growth and a more peaceful future will come from embracing innovation and forcing collaboration.

Speaking at the opening plenary alongside the president of Poland, Andrzej Duda, the prime minister of Vietnam, Pham Minh Chinh, and People’s Republic of China Premier Li Qiang, Schwab regurgitated parts of his speech from last year’s meeting, praising China for its economic policies while congratulating everyone participating in the event for representing “the most outstanding talents from business, government, academia, and civil society.”

In his very brief opening statement, the unelected globalist founder of the WEF said that the participants must “force collaboration” in order to drive economic growth and create a more resilient future.

“To drive future economic growth we must embrace innovation and force the collaboration across sectors, regions, nations, and cultures to create a more peaceful, inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future,” said Schwab.

“At this critical juncture the active participation of all stakeholders is essential to ensure a sustainable development path,” he added.

Schwab also mentioned that technologies coming out of the so-called fourth industrial revolution would make the world a better place.

“We are witnessing rapid technological advances with many opportunities, and with artificial intelligence, rapidly transforming our production and our lives,” he said, adding, “Breakthroughs from the fourth industrial revolution provide new opportunities for global prosperity and growth.”

The WEF Annual Meeting of the New Champions runs from June 25-27 under the theme “Next Frontiers for Growth.”

At the end of the plenary and after the president, the premier, and the prime minister had all praised their countries’ achievements and ambitions, Schwab returned to the topic of the fourth industrial revolution while revisiting this year’s theme, saying that were “limits to growth.”

“Limits to growth” is a nod to the Club of Rome book of the same name published in 1972, and Schwab says that these limits can be overcome by using technologies of the fourth industrial revolution wisely, by taking care of nature, by seeing the green economy as a “great opportunity for humankind,” by exploiting the capabilities of the attendees, and by formulating collaborations between governments and businesses.

The WEF strives to be the “leading global institution for public-private collaboration,” which is the fusion of corporation and state, or corporatism.

At the opening of last year’s Annual Meeting of the New Champions, Schwab praised Premier Li for “opening-up China’s capital market, attracting foreign investment, and innovation, and creating new urban areas to address land scarcity.”

He also thanked China for its “over 40 years of friendly and extensive partnership” with the WEF.

During another session last year, Cornell University professor Eswar Prasad said that “we are at the cusp of physical currency essentially disappearing,” and that programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could take us to either a better or much darker place where governments could program CBDCs with expiry dates and to restrict undesirable purchases.

 

Last month the WEF announced that Schwab will be transitioning from his role as the executive chairman of the forum to become chairman of the board of trustees, which consists of some of the most powerful people on the planet.

Starting next year, the forum’s executive responsibilities will be run by a president and managing board.

The current WEF president is former Norwegian MP Børge Brende. He is also the chair of the managing board.

If Brende keeps his position as president, then he may be the new face and voice of the organization, which has been pivoting “from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private collaboration” for almost a decade.

However, executive decisions will not be placed on a single individual but will include a managing board as well.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X