Nature was once a premier scientific journal …
… but now it’s taking Jason Arday’s word for things:
In a scathing editorial on the Jason Arday tragedy, @Nature credulously parrots claims he made about himself without any acknowledgment on Nature’s part of credible evidence that he was a serial fabulist and that we cannot take his claims, including that he was autistic, at face… pic.twitter.com/4woPSfDWuK
— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) September 2, 2026
For those without access to X:
In a scathing editorial on the Jason Arday tragedy, @Nature credulously parrots claims he made about himself without any acknowledgment on Nature’s part of credible evidence that he was a serial fabulist and that we cannot take his claims, including that he was autistic, at face value.
Nature makes no mention of credible evidence that he committed academic fraud and that he lied about a lengthy catalogue of elements of his life in an effort to burnish the mythology he had built around himself and that came crashing down in July and early August.
Instead, this editorial effectively removes all blame from Arday for the choices he made and the consequences those ultimately yielded. The editorial minimizes the plagiarism accusations and places blame on journalists for investigating his many false claims and on Cambridge for ultimately placing him under investigation—questioning whether the university followed proper protocol.
It is amazing that a news outlet ostensibly devoted to science would blame those who told the truth or sought to determine the truth about someone who demonstrably lied over and over and who was apparently culpable for committing egregious academic misconduct, including stealing another academic’s data.
Yes, some of the coverage has racist undertones at least. But it is illiberal to argue that the media should not have done their job to thoroughly investigate a public figure at one of the world’s leading academic institutions who had evidently conned his way to the pinnacle of academic success.
But Nature is no longer “devoted to science.” I don’t know when that began, but it was certainly the case by the time this letter was written about a year ago. Excerpt:
Unfortunately, the Nature group has abandoned its mission in favor of advancing a social justice agenda. The group has institutionalized censorship, implemented policies that have sacrificed merit in favor of identity-based criteria, and injected social engineering into its author guidelines and publishing process. The result is that papers published in Nature journals can no longer be regarded as rigorous science.
The author is a chemist, and she cites explicit woke policies of Nature going back at least to 2019.
I first heard of Nature when I was in law school. One of my roommates, who was getting her PhD in a scientific field, was being published in the journal at a very young age. I remember how excited she was and what an amazing achievement it was considered to be. So I long held the publication in very high esteem; it was considered the pinnacle. I haven’t held that opinion in quite some time, and of course it’s not alone in its decline.
Nature has decided to nurture falsity.
It’s all their truth now.
The death of Jason Arday must prompt deep reflection
Universities and media organizations need to scrutinize their roles in the events that led to this tragedy.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02677-0
____________________________________
It is a thoroughly disgraceful article.
Nor does it mention Cambridge’s role in enabling and flattering this lying fraud to such heights that his narcissist collapse would end as it did. Nor the effect that his fraud would have on other black scholars, about whom Nature claims to be concerned.
Plus the constant drumbeat of black racism, ignoring the black privilege that empowered Arday and the real racism against genuine white and Asian scholars who aren’t getting hired in favor of blacks like Arday.
From the X-post: “Yes, some of the coverage has racist undertones at least.” How so?
= = = = = = = =
It’s Nature’s way of telling you something’s wrong.
Nature went down the tubes about the same time as SciAm. My recollection is early 90s when they went whole hog for global warming.
I was sad about SciAm.
From class to trash.
When everything, including the personal, is political, science becomes alchemy or witchcraft.
Lysenkoism in modern times.
As an undergrad science major, I looked forward to getting my fresh copy of Scientific American each month. Read it practically cover to cover. So many interesting things to learn! Today however, such a disappointment. Unrecognizable.
Gadfly and Harvard PhD (maths and physics) Eric Weinstein was interviewed by the All In Podcast last month.
Eric is a big critic of peer reviewed science, and how dissidents like him are cast out like heretics.
He noted that while peer reviewed science began in the post-World War II, it was neither expected nor required. In this world, SciAm was a textbook worthy periodical. For me, too.
This changed after two events. First, Medicare established government health insurance. And by c. 1971, Congressional oversight was set afire over Medicare fraud.
Thus, every science journal folded, especially where public monies were involved, and adopted some sort of peer review process.
We became a society controlled by experts. The Wilsonian dream by Progs has become our nightmare.
Peter Boghossian has put forth a letter similar to the one all the Arday-supporting academics signed, in support of another academic plagiarist – on the grounds that, hey, if “we” support one, we ought to support all of ’em, right, guys? Right??
I don’t always agree with Boghossian, but he is almost a Trump-class troll. I appreciate his efforts.
om
Lyshenko very good.
Lysenko