In Defense of Merit in Science

Abbot, D.; Bikfalvi, A.; Bleske-Rechek, A.L.; Bodmer, W.; Boghossian, P.; Carvalho, C.M.; Ciccolini, J.; Coyne, J.A.; Gauss, J.; Gill, P.M.W.; Jitomirskaya, S.; Jussim, L.; Krylov, A.I.; Loury, G.C.; Maroja, L.; McWhorter, J.H.; Moosavi, S.; Schwerdtle, Patricia Nayna; Pearl, J.; Quintanilla-Tornel, M.A.; Schaefer, H.F.; Schreiner, P.R.; Schwerdtfeger, P.; Shechtman, D.; Shifman, M.; Tanzman, J.; Trout, B.L.; Warshel, A.; West, J.D.

doi:10.35995/jci03010001

Cited by 20 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(141 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[14][15][16][17]). Rare attempts to resist [18][19][20][21] were marginalized by tacit prohibitions to publish dissidents in mainstream scientific journals. Therefore, according to this analogy, one should expect that the attacks on eponyms in biology may be followed by their counterparts in physics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eponyms in physics: useful tools and cultural heritage

Gabovich,

Kuznetsov

2024

Eur. J. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eponyms in physics: useful tools and cultural heritage

Gabovich,

Kuznetsov

2024

Eur. J. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should not become a new battlefield for culture wars. It should remain the realm of peace, stability, acceptance, atonement, reconciliation, diversity, inclusivity, political neutrality, scientific freedom, meritocracy (see Abbot et al, 2023), mutual understanding and tolerance in our present-day turbulent world.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eponyms in biological nomenclature and the Slippery Slope and Pandora’s Box arguments

Mosyakin

2023

Ukr. Bot. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the discussion initiated by the opinion article by Guedes et al. (2023) “Eponyms have no place in 21st-century biological nomenclature” published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, in which the authors demanded to ban and cancel all eponyms (scientific names and epithets of taxa, which are derived from names of persons) in biological nomenclature, and, in particular, responding to comments by Thiele (2023) about the supposedly fallacious nature of the Slippery Slope argument (which I discussed in my earlier opinion articles), I provide here additional arguments in favor of the continued use of eponyms in particular and against politically (or so-called “ethically”) motivated censorship in biological nomenclature in general. I conclude that allowing “culture wars” in biological nomenclature and possible cancellation of scientific names that are considered (or may be considered) by some people as “objectionable, offensive, or inappropriate” will result in the nomenclatural chaos caused by a large-scale disruption of well-working nomenclatural codes and naming conventions. Biological nomenclature is vitally important not only to the science of biological taxonomy but also to all other sciences and fields of human activities dealing with the living world. That nomenclature, time-proven and, indeed, sometimes loaded with complicated but also fascinating and instructive history, should not be disrupted because of ever-changing politically motivated claims and Protean vogues. It should not become a new battlefield for culture wars.

show abstract

The Physician’s Calling and Science Promote Health Equity and Outcomes

Steinbach

2024

JAMA Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To the Editor The article by Prussien and colleagues 1 presents an updated Social-Ecological Model of Adolescent and Young Adult Readiness for Transition to Promote Health Equity (SMART-E) that challenges the physician to address a wide range of broadly defined effectors of health, well-being, and readiness to transition from pediatric to adult care and the spectrum of disparities that influence health equity and lifelong health outcomes. The article and associated Editorial 2 raise profound questions at the heart of the physician's calling and the practice of medicine and science.Most physicians have read Hamlet or similar works and have developed the commitment to respond to the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" to which humans are subject. As physicians, they experience these disparities in real time. Response to the human condition with compassion, diagnosis, and treatment of the individual patient is the physician's calling. But the article, which includes feedback from interviews with 20 patients, offers a diverging path. The physician is directed to consider how "practitioner readiness factors might be impacting patient success and health equity" and to target "institutional and interpersonal drivers of disparities, such as limited practitioner cultural humility and implicit bias." Physicians are challenged to divert their focus from the patient to the ills of society and into the depths of their own subconscious. No, the physician must not become a Hamlet, futilely battling the "sea of troubles." Advances in precision medicine demonstrate that awareness, questioning, and compassion are at the origin, but are not the end point of medical care.Next comes the question as to whether physicians and scientists promote equity. The reply begins by saying thank you to the countless health care professionals and scientists who serve to advance humanity. Thank you for medications, vaccines, gene editing treatment of sickle cell disease, instant access to patient records, and instant sharing of knowledge. We now have the tools to provide precision care and continuity of care. Medicine and science do promote equity, 3 but the contributions of a wide range of professionals are needed to bridge the remaining gaps in the delivery of optimal treatment modalities to all patients. 4 A remaining concern is the perceived encroachment of ideology into medicine and science. The view of the physician through the lens of intersectionality, racism, systems of power, and implicit bias is disheartening and counterproductive. This concern has been critically and comprehensively evaluated by a group of scientists who advocate for adherence to scientific methodology as the path forward to advance equity, 3 resolve barriers to care, and uphold the physician's calling.

show abstract

In Defense of Merit in Science

Cited by 20 publications

References 62 publications

Eponyms in physics: useful tools and cultural heritage

Eponyms in physics: useful tools and cultural heritage

Eponyms in biological nomenclature and the Slippery Slope and Pandora’s Box arguments

The Physician’s Calling and Science Promote Health Equity and Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About