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

“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.

Related Topics:#CollegeFix #HeartlandDailyNews #ScientificJournalNature #SexAndGenderDifferences #SexGenderResearch

Up Next

‘Transgender’ inmates are continuing to sexually assault female prisoners

Don't Miss

The Debt Pipeline: Canada Is Drowning In Debt

Todayville

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

Why are the globalists so opposed to Trump’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine?

armed forces / 1 hour ago

Yet another struggling soldier says Veteran Affairs Canada offered him euthanasia

2025 Federal Election / 15 hours ago

As PM Poilievre would cancel summer holidays for MP’s so Ottawa can finally get back to work

2025 Federal Election

The Cost of Underselling Canadian Oil and Gas to the USA

Published on April 25, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Canadians can now track in real time how much revenue the country is forfeiting to the United States by selling its oil at discounted prices, thanks to a new online tracker from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. The tracker shows the billions in revenue lost due to limited access to distribution for Canadian oil.

At a time of economic troubles and commercial tensions with the United States, selling our oil at a discount to U.S. middlemen who then sell it in the open markets at full price will rob Canada of nearly $19 billion this year, said Marco Navarro-Genie, the VP of Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Navarro-Genie led the team that designed the counter.

The gap between world market prices and what Canada receives is due to the lack of Canadian infrastructure.

According to a recent analysis by Ian Madsen, senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre, the lack of international export options forces Canadian producers to accept prices far below the world average. Each day this continues, the country loses hundreds of millions in potential revenue. This is a problem with a straightforward remedy, said David Leis, the Centre’s President. More pipelines need to be approved and built.

While the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline has helped, more is needed. It commenced commercial operations on May 1, 2024, nearly tripling Canada’s oil export capacity westward from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels daily. This expansion gives Canadian oil producers access to broader global markets, including Asia and the U.S. West Coast, potentially reducing the price discount on Canadian crude.

This is more than an oil story. While our oil price differential has long been recognized, there’s growing urgency around our natural gas exports. The global demand for cleaner energy, including Canadian natural gas, is climbing. Canada exports an average of 12.3 million GJ of gas daily. Yet, we can still not get the full value due to infrastructure bottlenecks, with losses of over $7.3 billion (2024). A dedicated counter reflecting these mounting gas losses underscores how critical this issue is.

“The losses are not theoretical numbers,” said Madsen. “This is real money, and Canadians can now see it slipping away, second by second.”

The Frontier Centre urges policymakers and industry leaders to recognize the economic urgency and ensure that infrastructure projects like TMX are fully supported and efficiently utilized to maximize Canada’s oil export potential. The webpage hosting the counter offers several examples of what the lost revenue could buy for Canadians. A similar counter for gas revenue lost through similarly discounted gas exports will be added in the coming days.

What Could Canada Do With $25.6 Billion a Year?

Without greater pipeline capacity, Canada loses an estimated (2025) $25.6 billion by selling our oil and gas to the U.S. at a steep discount. That money could be used in our communities — funding national defence, hiring nurses, supporting seniors, building schools, and improving infrastructure. Here’s what we’re giving up by underselling these natural resources.

342,000 Nurses

The average annual salary for a registered nurse in Canada is about $74,958. These funds could address staffing shortages and improve patient care nationwide.
Source

39,000 New Housing Units

At an estimated $472,000 per unit (excluding land costs, based on Toronto averages), $25.6 billion could fund nearly 94,000 affordable housing units.
Source

About the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent Canadian think-tank that researches and analyzes public policy issues, including energy, economics and governance.

Automotive

Hyundai moves SUV production to U.S.

Published on April 25, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Hyundai is responding swiftly to 47th President Donald Trump’s newly implemented auto tariffs by shifting key vehicle production from Mexico to the U.S. The automaker, heavily reliant on the American market, has formed a specialized task force and committed billions to American manufacturing, highlighting how Trump’s America First economic policies are already impacting global business decisions.

Key Details:

Hyundai has created a tariffs task force and is relocating Tucson SUV production from Mexico to Alabama.
Despite a 25% tariff on car imports that began April 3, Hyundai reported a 2% gain in Q1 operating profit and maintained earnings guidance.
Hyundai and Kia derive one-third of their global sales from the U.S., where two-thirds of their vehicles are imported.

Diving Deeper:

In a direct response to President Trump’s decisive new tariffs on imported automobiles, Hyundai announced Thursday it has mobilized a specialized task force to mitigate the financial impact of the new trade policy and confirmed production shifts of one of its top-selling models to the United States. The move underscores the gravity of the new 25% import tax and the economic leverage wielded by a White House that is now unambiguously prioritizing American industry.

Starting with its popular Tucson SUV, Hyundai is transitioning some manufacturing from Mexico to its Alabama facility. Additional consideration is being given to relocating production away from Seoul for other U.S.-bound vehicles, signaling that the company is bracing for the long-term implications of Trump’s tariffs.

This move comes as the 25% import tax on vehicles went into effect April 3, with a matching tariff on auto parts scheduled to hit May 3. Hyundai, which generates a full third of its global revenue from American consumers, knows it can’t afford to delay action. Notably, U.S. retail sales for Hyundai jumped 11% last quarter, as car buyers rushed to purchase vehicles before prices inevitably climb due to the tariff.

Despite the trade policy, Hyundai reported a 2% uptick in first-quarter operating profit and reaffirmed its earnings projections, indicating confidence in its ability to adapt. Yet the company isn’t taking chances. Ahead of the tariffs, Hyundai stockpiled over three months of inventory in U.S. markets, hoping to blunt the initial shock of the increased import costs.

In a significant show of good faith and commitment to U.S. manufacturing, Hyundai last month pledged a massive $21 billion investment into its new Georgia plant. That announcement was made during a visit to the White House, just days before President Trump unveiled the auto tariff policy — a strategic alignment with a pro-growth, pro-America agenda.

Still, the challenges are substantial. The global auto industry depends on complex, multi-country supply chains, and analysts warn that tariffs will force production costs higher. Hyundai is holding the line on pricing for now, promising to keep current model prices stable through June 2. After that, however, price adjustments are on the table, potentially passing the burden to consumers.

South Korea, which remains one of the largest exporters of automobiles to the U.S., is not standing idle. A South Korean delegation is scheduled to meet with U.S. trade officials in Washington Thursday, marking the start of negotiations that could redefine the two nations’ trade dynamics.

President Trump’s actions represent a sharp pivot from the era of global corporatism that defined trade under the Obama-Biden administration. Hyundai’s swift response proves that when the U.S. government puts its market power to work, foreign companies will move mountains — or at least entire assembly lines — to stay in the game.