ArticleThe Hastings Center report2024
How to Diagnose Abhorrent Science.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Schoolhouse risk: Can we mitigate the polygenic Pygmalion effect?Acta psychologica · 2024Trial
- Was the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Abhorrent or Just Controversial?Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- The Preprint Problem: Fringe, Genetically Informed Studies of Group Differences in Behavior Housed on Open Science Platforms.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- Behavioural genetics must prioritize communication.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Public Perception of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- The Geneticization of Education and Its Bioethical Implications.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
What makes certain scientific research controversial? And when does scientific research go beyond being merely controversial to be something far worse? We propose a diagnostic framework for distinguishing between scientific research that is merely controversial and that which is abhorrent. Our framework places research projects along two axes of a value-harm map. Most research, fortunately, is both valuable and harmless. However, research may be controversial if it is either valuable but harmful or harmless but valueless. The most concerning quadrant of our value-harm map includes research that is both valueless and harmful, which is abhorrent science. The article's analysis considers a series of case studies, highlighting "new genomic race science" as an exemplar of abhorrent science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.