Skip to main content

Should blogs be censored?

Although this is now my 'real' blog, I started blogging elsewhere, on Nature Network (and I still occasionally post here at my old blog, where it's a purely sciencey topic). Nature Network is an excellent environment for people in the science arena to share information, set up by company behind the world's leading science journal.

However, recently, a Nature Network blogger has been censored. One of his posts was pulled by the management. Ironically, it was a post that was inspired by the current attempt by the British Chiropractic Association to sue Simon Singh for libel because he referred to a claim as bogus.

I have seen the original post, and I can see why the management was nervous. It mentions several individuals, mostly big name scientists, who are either trading on their name to make money on products that make dubious scientific claims, or leading people astray (in the blogger's opinion). However, it's worth saying that the suggestions that worried the management have all been made elsewhere (one of them on this blog), especially on Ben Goldacre's excellent Bad Science blog.

On the one hand, I can see that the management at Nature Network don't want trouble for themselves or for the blogger in question - but equally this seems to play into the hands of those who want to use the UK's outrageous libel laws to suppress science and personal opinion. There is a campaign to get this changed - you can sign a petition to this effect and read more about it here.

If Nature Network's actions interest you, you can see the reactions of the bemused blogger here, the response of the NN management here (and it's rumoured you can see the original post here).


  1. Brian, a correction to one of your statements, that Nature Network was "set up by the world's leading science journal." Not so, Nature Network is on the platform, but other than sharing that platform, it has no editorial connection with the journal Nature. Some Nature journal staff use Nature Network (myself included) but NN is an independent product, with its own editor (Corie Lok) and publisher (Timo Hannay). (Nature's publisher is Steven Inchcoombe and its chief editor Philip Campbell.)

  2. Thanks for that correction, Maxine, but I'm a bit puzzled.

    At the bottom of the Nature Network site it does quite clearly say (c) Nature Publishing Group, which would seem to suggest it was set up by the same company.

    I wasn't suggesting it had editorial connection with Nature, I meant a connection in the business sense - it appears to be the same company (unless you tell me otherwise).

  3. Happy to clarify. Nature Publishing Group is the company that owns Nature (the journal) and Nature Network (a free social networking website for scientists), and many other journals and products.

    That is, Nature Network was set up by Nature Publishing Group, the company, and not by Nature, the journal.

    I suppose an analogy would be to say that if Sky TV launched a new channel, one would not write, "Sky TV, set up by the Times, launches a new channel...." just because they are both owned and produced by the same company.

    I think the confusion re Nature/Nature Publishing Group is the word "Nature" which crops up in both names. You are not the only person to find these distinctions puzzling!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope