There is also one more important harm: reputational and trust harms to science.
Research ethics controversies hurt research overall. They decrease trust in ethics review. And in this case decrease redditors' trusts of researchers, likely influencing willingness to participate in consented research.
The mods of r/ChangeMyView shared the sub was the subject of a study to test the persuasiveness of LLMs & that they didn't consent. There’s a lot that went wrong, so here’s a 🧵 unpacking it, along with some ideas for how to do research with online communities ethically. tinyurl.com/59tpt988
BREAKING — The family abducted by ICE is returning home, per email from Sackets Harbor Superintendent:
Great piece.
I'm wondering if there's any more info about their immigration status that could be shared. Just trying to get a sense of what "in the U.S. illegally" (via linked @ktampone.bsky.social article) means in this context, as my understanding is that it could refer to huge range of stuff?
New — I spoke to the school principal of Sackets Harbor, NY, where ICE handcuffed and disappeared a mother and 3 kids (including a 3rd grader). It’s also the town Trump Border Czar Tom Homan calls home.
Cook tells me about how the small town is taking on enormous power to bring the students home:
Thank you for being there ♥️
FDA realness
And cancelling those projects after a research team has already put months of work (and NIH money) into getting off the ground is pretty much always going to be a HUGE waste.
/3
... that has already made it through the NIH gauntlet is going to involve jeopardizing projects that it seems obviously ridiculous to jeopardize.
/2
A little perplexed by how some language in the article suggests that this grant was mistakenly "caught up" in an overly "broad" definition of DEI. NIH research grants are fundamentally about public health, not to mention really friggin' hard to get. Targeting pretty much ANY study...
/1
...info they can use to:
- make comparisons with other studies
- make judgments about our study's reliability, how it might apply or not apply to another context
- critique our work and offer different interpretations
- use our work as a basis for research with a different focus /2
A research paper like this should not just be a catalog of the findings we drew from our particular methods and sample. It's more like, one entry in a larger body of work by lots of people w/ competing perspectives. We characterize our sample, in part, to give people w/ a different pov... /1
That is so heartening to hear, thank you
Putting this up on my wall
This kind of bias makes these no-longer-scientific journals until corrected.
"It appears that journals published by the federal government are subject to direct political interference at this time, compromising the principles of peer review and the integrity of all research published therein."
"But, let’s be clear. These are not editorial requests aimed at improving our science or clarifying our main arguments. Instead, they seek to obscure from view entire populations of people, such as sexual minorities, who experience tremendous inequities in health." 👏👏👏
The current administration is straight up censoring the scientific record by requiring authors to alter an already-accepted research paper because it uses banned words such as "gender" and "equitable" and presents data broken down by sexual orientation.
Last week we officially withdrew a paper accepted for publication in a scientific journal because of editorial requests to remove language deemed out of compliance with executive orders.
criticalpublichealth.org/blog/2025/03...
In "disheartening" conversations with fellow NIH-funded researchers, one said they "shelved a proposal on sexual and gender minority health because 'what was the point?' Another abandoned a manuscript out of fear of retaliation from a government funder."
criticalpublichealth.org/blog/2025/03...
"I have a few violations to scientific integrity to report. Where do I go for that now?"
criticalpublichealth.org/blog/2025/02...
Is there any update on this? Other projects that were paused over this were re-started a couple days later (in the wake of legal action/memo rescission). Why is this project being treated differently?
After the federal grant freeze, "I spent the day speaking with colleagues to be sure they understood that any freeze on our federal grants meant that our agency would be forced to lay off all staff and immediately close."
criticalpublichealth.org/blog/2025/01...
You're welcome
"A review of the available evidence, however, suggests that the claim is almost certainly not true. According to a comprehensive report issued in September by the US Agency for International Development (USAid), not a penny of the $60.8m in contraceptive and condom shipments funded by the US in the past year went to Gaza. In fact, the accounting shows, there were no condoms sent to any part of the Middle East, and just one small shipment, $45,680 in oral and injectable contraceptives, was sent to the region, all of it distributed to the government of Jordan."
"While Leavitt did not offer any evidence to support this claim, and was not pressed to by reporters, the idea that the United States government planned to spend $50m to send condoms to Gaza quickly went viral, with an assist from Musk himself."
Is there any reason to believe this? Evidence from @us.theguardian.com suggests it's "almost certainly not true." www.theguardian.com/us-news/live...
"I take this situation extremely seriously and want to address my fans, the investors who have been affected, and the broader community. I am fully cooperating with and am committed to assisting the legal team representing the individuals impacted, as well as to help uncover the truth, hold the responsible parties accountable, and resolve this matter..."
Maybe?
x.com/HalieyWelchX...