The article discusses the controversial formation of a new journal aimed at promoting open discourse in science, particularly regarding COVID-19's origins and public health measures like masks and vaccines. Carl Bergstrom expresses concerns that the journal may feed into agendas that create doubt around scientific consensus. Kulldorff, an editor of the journal, argues for the necessity of allowing diverse scientific opinions to be published and debated. The background of editorial board members connected to the Trump administration raises questions about political influence, despite Kulldorff's claims of independence for the journal.
If you can create the illusion that there is not a predominance of opinion that says vaccines and masks are effective ways of controlling the pandemic, you can undermine that notion of scientific consensus.
I think it's important that scientists can publish what they think is important science, and then that should be open for discussion, instead of preventing people from publishing.
The journal will be a venue for open discourse and academic freedom, allowing scientists to explore and discuss diverse viewpoints freely.
Kulldorff stated there's 'no connection' between the journal and the Trump administration, emphasizing its independence.
Collection
[
|
...
]