Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Premier Scientific Journal Nature Takes on ‘Climate of Fear’ Surrounding Research on Sex and Genr

Published

8 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

“These articles are using phrases like ‘a person’s sex assigned at birth’. I find that phrase amusing. I don’t think sex is assigned at birth. Biological sex is a fact. It’s not assigned. It’s observed.”

Nature, one of the world’s premier scientific journals, has acknowledged the importance of studying sex and gender differences and officially denounced the “climate of fear and reticence” that is stymying research on the topic.

To that end, the journal in May launched “a collection of opinion articles” on the topic to be published over the coming months to foster honest and courageous discussions on a topic that many scientists shy away from due to fears of professional and personal repercussions.

“Some scientists have been warned off studying sex differences by colleagues. Others, who are already working on sex or gender-related topics, are hesitant to publish their views,” read the editorial introducing the series.

“…In time, we hope this collection will help to shape research, and provide a reference point for moderating often-intemperate debates.”

Headlines that kicked off the series include “Neglecting sex and gender in research is a public-health risk,” “Male–female comparisons are powerful in biomedical research” and “Heed lessons from past studies involving transgender people: first, do no harm.”

What the collection of articles represents and whether it will ease tensions surrounding this area of research remains to be seen.

Jeffrey Mogil, a neuroscientist and pain researcher at Mcgill University, as well as the co-author of one of the articles in Nature’s sex and gender series, told The College Fix there is an effort underway in biological research to do away with or minimize the importance of the concept of sex and sex as a binary variable.

This is problematic, Mogil said in a recent telephone interview, because sex in mammals is “either binary or it rounds to binary and in doing so it always has been useful and continues to be and any conception of it that isn’t binary would then impose practical difficulties on how science is done.”

Moreover, he noted, discarding the notion of binary sex in mammals would set back important advancements in how many biomedical researchers now do their work.

“There are sex differences in all kinds of traits that we’re interested in and where we didn’t know they existed,” Mogil said. “The reason we didn’t know they existed [is] because until extremely recently, essentially all biology pre-clinical experiments were done with males only.”

“Since regulatory agencies, funding agencies, have demanded that people start using both sexes [in research],” he said, “lo and behold, we’re finding sex differences.”

“We’re finding that what we thought was the biology of a thing was only the biology of the thing in males and the female biology is completely different,” he added.

“This is in our minds,” he said, “an incredible scientific advance and that advance is at risk of stopping and reverting if, you know, people start to believe…dividing animals into males and females is inappropriate.”

Although Mogil stated he did not know how Nature made editorial decisions regarding the selection of articles for their sex and gender collection, he said that he felt the article he and his co-authors wrote was intended to defend the status quo against those “advocating…either that gender is much more important than sex or that sex is more complicated than people have made it seem.”

The College Fix reached out to a senior communications manager from Springer Nature in early June regarding the selection process for the series, as well as how sex was presented in some of the other commentaries, but did not receive a response.

Daniel Barbash, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at Cornell University, was more skeptical than Mogil of Nature’s sex and gender op-ed collection when he spoke to The College Fix in a late-May phone interview.

Although he said he generally held a positive view of the article Mogil co-authored and appreciated that it explicitly stated “there are only two sex categories in mammals,” he noted that he also felt the authors of other commentaries in the series were to some extent “further conflating sex and gender.”

“There’s little things that sometimes give the game away,” he said. “These articles are using phrases like ‘a person’s sex assigned at birth’. I find that phrase amusing. I don’t think sex is assigned at birth. Biological sex is a fact. It’s not assigned. It’s observed.”

“[For] the vast majority of humans, from the moment they’re born,” he said, “there is zero ambiguity whether they’re a male or a female.”

Furthermore, the “overall tone” of the collection, Barbash said, was that “there needs to be more research on gender variation and that there is more complexity to biological sex than a binary.”

According to Barbash, neither of these notions are “universally accepted” among biologists.

He said he believes the series has “the potential to drive funding agencies and other agencies that are involved in the intersection between politics and research in a particular direction that I don’t think would always be helpful.”

“I don’t think any serious biologist would deny that sex is a hugely important factor in both basic research and in biomedical research,” said Barbash. “Of course, any study on the effect of drugs should be tested separately in males and females, otherwise it’s a hugely confounding factor if you ignore that.”

Yet, he said, “the notion that we need to do the same thing for gender…is really not supported,” and may not be very feasible.

“Half the population is male and half the population is female,” Barbash said. “We see all kinds of estimates for gender nonconforming and transgender individuals but, no doubt, they’re much less frequent than males and females.”

On account of this, he said, even if research questions regarding gender divergence and transgender individuals are worthwhile, “it would be problematic, for example, to necessitate that all NIH studies of humans include males, females and gender nonconforming individuals or transgender individuals.”

However, he said, he feared “this series of articles could have that kind of impact in influencing policy.”

Originally published by The College Fix. Republished with permission.

2025 Federal Election

The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Pat Murphy

The Liberals just proved they’ll do anything to win, including gutting key Trudeau-era policies

With the general election safely in the rear-view mirror, here are some observations.

The Liberal will to power

To me, the most surreal moment came during Mark Carney’s speech on the night he won the Liberal leadership. Raucous cheers ensued when he
declared the abolition of the consumer carbon tax and the retreat from the increase in capital gains inclusion rates. If you knew nothing about Canadian politics, you’d think this jubilation was in response to the assertion of long-cherished Liberal policies and principles.

But, of course, it was nothing of the sort.

In fact, the policies being jettisoned were Liberal in origin and had been hitherto fiercely defended. If you criticized the carbon tax, you were labelled a climate change “denier.” And if you were opposed to the capital gains changes, you were indifferent to increased inequality, the spread of child poverty and various other social ills.

This ability to shamelessly execute dramatic policy flips is indicative of the Liberals’ intense passion for power. And however cynical it may be, it’s one of the keys to their status as Canada’s “natural governing party.”

Thus we have Mark Carney presenting as someone who “just got here,” a tactic designed to disassociate himself from the previous Liberal government. It was  immaterial that he was an adviser to that same government, has stocked his team with its alumni and was an early advocate of carbon taxes. Instead of the enthusiastic net-zero hawk, he ran as the sober, economics-savvy technocrat whose banking and private sector experience is tailor-made for the current trade-war turbulence.

Does this mean that Carney has abandoned the ideological agenda of his unpopular Liberal predecessor? Not necessarily—and probably not at all.
Still, it worked politically. Will to power isn’t something to be sneezed at.

Conservative blues

There’s no sugar-coating the fact that it’s been a deeply disappointing election for the Conservatives. After being the “inevitable” government-in-waiting just four months ago, the combination of Justin Trudeau’s departure and Donald Trump’s trade war totally upended the electoral landscape. And to add insult to injury, their leader, Pierre Poilievre, lost his seat. That said, not everything is doom and gloom.

Compared to the actual results from the previous (2021) election, the Conservatives gained 25 seats. Or if you prefer adjusting the 2021 results to
reflect the new electoral boundaries, the seat gain comes to 18. Either way, the direction is non-trivially positive.

The popular vote share of 41.4 per cent is similarly impressive. Looking over the past 60 years, the Conservative median vote was in the 35 to 36 per cent range. You might call that their natural base. Only Brian Mulroney’s fragile coalition ever brought them north of 40 per cent.

And as Poilievre has been criticized for simply playing to the base, it’s fair to ask whether 41 per cent or thereabouts is the party’s new base. If it is, the
Conservative future is potentially promising.

Mind you, Poilievre might not be around to personally reap the rewards.

The NDP debacle

It was the worst of times for the NDP. Their support collapsed, dropping to its lowest ever level in terms of vote share, and they lost official party status. In the process, they shed over 70 per cent of their caucus and were wiped out in voter rich Ontario. Some of this misfortune may be attributed to their propping up the Trudeau government, thus tending to blur the difference between the two parties. So when Trump’s trade war hit, it was easy for NDP voters to flee to Carney’s perceived safe pair of hands.

To the extent that’s true, there’s a historical echo. Between 1972 and 1974, the NDP supported Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal minority in return for various policy concessions. Then the Liberals pulled the plug, winning a majority in the ensuing election while the NDP lost almost half of their seats. It was that will to power again!

This underlines the dilemma confronting parties like the NDP. Do they want to ruthlessly compete for power? Or are they content with shaping public debate, gradually making once-radical ideas seem mainstream and pushing the boundaries of what society sees as politically acceptable?

It’s a very real—and honourable—trade-off choice.

The pollsters

In a post-election interview, poll aggregator Philippe J. Fournier was generally satisfied with his model’s performance. And if you take margins of error into account, he was justified in doing so.

Nonetheless, his final projection had the Liberals at 186 seats and the Conservatives at 124. The respective actuals were 169 and 144. And he
significantly underestimated the Conservatives in Ontario while overestimating the Liberals in Alberta.

Vindication is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.

The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Ian Madsen

From overstaffed departments to subsidy giveaways, Canadians are paying a high price for government excess

Canada’s federal spending is growing, deficits are mounting, and waste is going unchecked. As governments look for ways to control costs, some experts say Canada needs a dedicated agency to root out inefficiency—before it’s too late

Not all the Trump administration’s policies are dubious. One is very good, in theory at least: the Department of Government Efficiency. While that
term could be an oxymoron, like ‘political wisdom,’ if DOGE proves useful, a Canadian version might be, too.

DOGE aims to identify wasteful, duplicative, unnecessary or destructive government programs and replace outdated data systems. It also seeks to
lower overall costs and ensure mechanisms are in place to evaluate proposed programs for effectiveness and value for money. This can, and often does, involve eliminating departments and, eventually, thousands of jobs. Some new roles within DOGE may need to become permanent.

The goal in the U.S. is to reduce annual operating costs and ensure government spending grows more slowly than revenues. Washington’s spending has exploded in recent years. The U.S. federal deficit now exceeds six per cent of gross domestic product. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the cost of servicing that debt is rising at an unsustainable rate.

Canada’s latest budget deficit of $61.9 billion in fiscal 2023-24 amounts to about two per cent of GDP—less alarming than our neighbour’s situation, but still significant. It adds to the federal debt of $1.236 trillion, about 41 per cent of our estimated $3 trillion GDP. Ottawa’s public accounts show expenses at 17.8 per cent of GDP, up from about 14 per cent just eight years ago. Interest on the growing debt accounted for 9.1 per cent of
revenues in the most recent fiscal year, up from five per cent just two years ago.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) consistently highlights dubious spending, outright waste and extravagant programs: “$30 billion in subsidies to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt. Federal corporate subsidies totalled $11.2 billion in 2022 alone. Shutting down the federal government’s seven regional development agencies would save taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion annually.”

The CTF also noted that Ottawa hired 108,000 additional staff over the past eight years, at an average annual cost of more than $125,000 each. Hiring based on population growth alone would have added just 35,500 staff, saving about $9 billion annually. The scale of waste is staggering. Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail collectively lose more than $5 billion a year. For reference, $1 billion could buy Toyota RAV4s for over 25,600 families.

Ottawa also duplicates functions handled by provincial governments, often stepping into areas of constitutional provincial jurisdiction. Shifting federal programs in health, education, environment and welfare to the provinces could save many more billions annually. Poor infrastructure decisions have also cost Canadians dearly—most notably the $33.4 billion blown on what should have been a relatively simple expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Better project management and staffing could have prevented that disaster. Federal IT systems are another money pit, as shown by the $4-billion Phoenix payroll debacle. Then there’s the Green Slush Fund, which misallocated nearly $900 million.

Even more worrying, the rapidly expanding Old Age Supplement and Guaranteed Income Security programs are unfunded, unlike the Canada Pension Plan. Their combined cost is already roughly equal to the federal deficit and could soon become unmanageable.

Canada is sleepwalking toward financial ruin. A Canadian version of DOGE—Canada Accountability, Efficiency and Transparency Team, or CAETT—is urgently needed. The Office of the Auditor General does an admirable job identifying waste and poor performance, but it’s not proactive and lacks enforcement powers. At present, there is no mechanism in place to evaluate or eliminate ineffective programs. CAETT could fill that gap and help secure a prosperous future for Canadians.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

© Troy Media

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X