The irony of this "study" of fraudulent nonsensical papers submitted to gender studies/critical theory journals is that it is itself the epitome of the shoddy scholarship it purports to unmask. Let's #peerreview it. areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/aca… 1) This study lacks the most basic controls. If you want to argue these papers were accepted because of their notional field of study, then you have to submit similarly nonsensical papers to journals in other fields.

This is such a disingenuous sleight-of-hand - rebranding the idea that one should share published data as sinister "open science" in order to argue for data hoarding blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/h… Sharing published data isn't "open science", it's "science"

I do not understand how David Reich and other geneticists find it so easy to slide from arguing that there might be mean population differences between different groups of humans to claiming that characterizing such differences will be useful somehow Even if you stipulate that there's some genetic association between ancestry and some clinically or prophylactically actionable phenotype, isn't the whole point of modern genetics to ID the relevant variants so we can make predictions at the individual rather than group level?

This is all true, but also misses the mark in a critical way. Of course #NobelPrizes do distort science and misrepresent its history. The #NobelPrizes are also so biased in favor of white men that it would be comical if it weren't so tragic and destructive.