[HN Gopher] The Bethesda Declaration
___________________________________________________________________
The Bethesda Declaration
Author : perihelions
Score : 83 points
Date : 2025-06-18 11:40 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| freen wrote:
| 100% guaranteed that this will get nuked.
|
| No way anything even remotely critical of the current
| administration remains on HN.
| eej71 wrote:
| Do you say that because you think the majority of HN readers
| are sympathetic to the Trump administration? Or do you say that
| because you think those with the power to flag this kind of
| submission are secret MAGA hat wearing loyalists? Or is there
| something else you see that makes you see it this way?
|
| I ask these questions because in my experience here in HN and
| in most other related tech forums, the participants and those
| with the unlucky job of being a mod are usually not in tune
| with Team Trump.
| esseph wrote:
| There is a huge number of posts specifically over the past
| month that are both tech related and extremely political. The
| critical ones of the admin get flagged, seemingly without
| fail.
|
| "We can't talk about that"
| ameliaquining wrote:
| I'd be curious if you have numbers to support this.
| esseph wrote:
| I have my anecdotal evidence and the number of comments
| in my post history that are discussing this, a long with
| the same comments from others.
|
| It's fucking annoying, and arguably unethical and
| dishonest.
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| In my experience it's anything political (regardless of "side")
| which gets downvoted on HN, which is most likely because the HN
| guidelines specifically discourage it, which is a very common
| policy on forums due to them more often than not devolving into
| unproductive arguments.
| djoldman wrote:
| Generally things get flagged on HN because the posts are off
| topic and have a low chance of interesting and insightful
| commentary (or worse: likely to become flamewars). This is
| regardless of political leaning (right/left/other).
|
| In short: the internet certainly does not lack for politics-
| centered content. HN isn't it.
| ameliaquining wrote:
| Do you mean this aspirationally or are you saying that
| politics-centered content doesn't in practice appear and get
| traction on HN? Because the latter does not seem true. (Not
| making any claims about the ideological orientation of said
| content.)
| djoldman wrote:
| I mean that the HN guidelines use these definitions as to
| what the site is _meant_ to embody:
|
| > What to Submit
|
| > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find
| interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups.
| If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be:
| anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
|
| > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or
| sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some
| interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or
| disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on
| TV news, it's probably off-topic.
|
| So " _Most_ stories about politics... " The guidelines are
| carefully written. If a story is political but has
| important tech ramifications, then it's likely on-topic.
|
| Some posts are flagged that shouldn't be and vice versa.
| It's not a perfect system.
|
| Is there a systemic bias one way or another? I'm not sure.
| I think people are just sometimes fed up with seeing stuff
| on HN that they're explicitly trying to avoid when they
| come here.
| esseph wrote:
| I'm convinced
| TrnsltLife wrote:
| "in protest of the politicization of science and science funding
| at the NIH"
|
| As if there wasn't politicization of science and science funding
| during the entire last administration. There was just more of an
| alignment of worldview between scientists and that
| administration. Scientists who didn't share the worldview or walk
| in lockstep still got oppressed and silenced.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| Both things are true. Trump is destroying our science presence
| AND Biden and co heavily politicized science regarding gender,
| trans, all that stuff to the point where you aren't even
| allowed to do research at all!
|
| Science should ALWAYS be free to ask questions and explore them
| no matter how uncomfortable they sound. And this is a huge
| overreaction to how the left politicized science their way and
| continued to say that's it not political. And now they complain
| about it... can't have it both ways.
| sparkie wrote:
| Scientists should be free to research what they want of
| course, provided that research does not cause harm to anyone.
|
| But, scientists should not have access taxpayer funding to
| conduct whatever little experiments they want. There's not an
| infinite pot of money, and it is elected officials who decide
| how the pot gets spent. And in turn, the people decide who
| the elected officials are through the ballot.
|
| The administration was elected. These entitled signatories
| were not. It is not for them to decide how taxpayer money is
| spent.
|
| If you want to conduct science without politics, don't depend
| on taxpayer money to do your research. Find a private source
| of funding.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| Universities aren't just a source of funding they are a
| means of doing the research. Universities have plenty of
| private money too but they refused to allow any research
| that went against a progressive narrative.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| I will echo sentiments that this is ironic. Where was a Bethesda
| declaration when the zeitgeist banned any research into things
| that would upset the narrative around trans medicine in the
| previous administrations? Where was any outrage over the AMA
| ignoring in whole the UK finding that giving hormones to children
| did not help and in fact was harming them?
| skybrian wrote:
| Where are the people who will explain what happened, rather
| than telling you what to think?
|
| I mean, this stuff isn't generally known, so at least link to
| something convincing if you want people to believe it.
| whatshisface wrote:
| We are talking about human beings here. Everyone's willing to
| ignore an injustice that they don't expect to happen to them.
| Now that everyone is affected everyone cares.
| absurdo wrote:
| Put your mask back on and stand in line and don't you dare
| question the settled Science, right-winger.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| Masks do work though and it takes no effort to wear one. I
| believe in masks and covid and all that.
| ForLoveOfCats wrote:
| I'll take the bait and assume that you're engaging in good
| faith. I hope you assume the same of me in return.
|
| Trans healthcare is far from a settled science, and there is a
| lot we don't know yet. Part of the reason for this is how new
| this is as an area of active research, a history of science on
| this topic being intentionally quashed[1], and frankly the
| relative low numbers of trans people in general. This is all
| despite trans people, like all queer people, exiting in some
| form or another since the beginning of recorded history[2].
|
| I assume from what you said that you're referencing the Cass
| Review[3], a review of current literature in the area of trans
| healthcare, specifically where it pertains to minors. Further
| review of this publication[4] has shown it to have thrown away
| a much data, applied inconsistent logical standards to
| different arguments, and based a number of conclusions on
| disproven fallacies such as the concept of "social contagion".
| Yet even then it doesn't actually make the conclusions which
| you've implied.
|
| To show my biases, I myself am trans and really don't like the
| Cass Review. It's based on bad science and relies on many
| misunderstandings, but even then it is *much* more even-handed
| than those who use it as justification for limiting gender-
| affirming healthcare like to claim.
|
| Science is awesome, it's how we understand the world around us.
| Frankly I'd love to understand more about the origins of what
| makes someone trans, how to achieve better results when
| medically transitioning, ect. However it's important to
| recognize that not all published science is of the same
| quality, and that study replication as well as others reviewing
| published work is a crucial part of what makes science
| trustworthy in the long run. After all, that's what the Cass
| Review was trying to do in the first place.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissen...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review
|
| [4] https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/yale-researchers-
| internat...
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| Yes exactly what I'm trying to say. It's not settled at all.
| We should not ban anything outright without evidence HOWEVER
| we should not prescribe things without evidence. The left was
| suppressing research that went against their politics just as
| much as the right is now for the same reason. They both suck,
| and both sides are saying the same thing to each other. It's
| a circus watching this as a centrist.
| anonymous_user9 wrote:
| "Just as much"? Certainly not. Even if there was total
| censorship of studies critical of trans healthcare, that
| would be a tiny fraction of what the trump administration
| has already cut.
|
| What in the world makes you think that suppressing science
| is a "both sides" issue?
| ofcourseyoudo wrote:
| One piece of evidence is drastically reduced rates of
| suicide in children that get gender-affirming care. This
| has been shown in multiple studies and metastudies. That's
| enough for me.
| ofcourseyoudo wrote:
| No, that's not "exactly what you're trying to say". You
| asserted incorrectly that the UK findings were that gender
| care does not help at all. By any genuine reading of the
| study it absolutely doesn't say that. This is
| intellectually disingenous.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| > they both suck
|
| Can't speak for you but in my country the right is trying
| to kick poor people off of welfare.
|
| It's under the guise of "balancing the budget" but it's
| done with fast cuts, no rolloff, no phase-out period. If
| they cared about the budget it would be done gradually. In
| my country the right wing is cruel. Bullies elected by a
| coalition of bullies and gullible folks and people who want
| revenge for imagined slights.
|
| > It's a circus watching this as a centrist.
|
| If you think the left and the right are the same you need
| to watch closer bud
| StatsAreFun wrote:
| I don't know what the answer is necessarily but this declaration
| also appears very political in nature. If all of those Nobel
| laureates and high-profile researchers really do support the
| content of the declaration, why not attempt to meet with NIH
| leadership and work together on a solution? You know, reach out
| and talk this out? A public declaration and the resulting media
| attention from "opposite-side" news outlets just comes off as
| political gamesmanship to me, at least. Several other commenters
| have correctly pointed out the problems existing at the NIH and
| NIH-funded institutions so the "why now" question is especially
| relevant here. Anyone remember the massive research scandal
| involving Dr. Eliezer Masliah late last year?
| andrewlgood wrote:
| Every decision as to how to spend taxpayer money is political.
| There are always trade offs. The money could be spent on the
| military, enhancing social security, getting homeless people off
| the streets. These are all political decisions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-18 23:01 UTC)