Access

Correspondence

Nature 444, 679-680 (7 December 2006) | doi:10.1038/444679e; Published online 6 December 2006

Open Innovation Challenges

Pseudoscience should not be published in Nature

Uwe Balthasar1 & Susannah Maidment1

  1. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, UK

Although we acknowledge the need to allow publication of diverse opinions in the name of free speech, Nature has a responsibility, as a leading and widely read science journal, to uphold scientific standards and values. Unfortunately, in Maciej Giertych's Correspondence letter ("Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved" Nature 444, 265; 2006), Nature fell short in this duty, allowing creationist pseudoscientific arguments to be presented as fact, without any supporting evidence.

MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS

These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.

NEWS AND VIEWS

How Gsα activates adenylyl cyclase

Nature Structural Biology News and Views (01 Feb 1998)

Creationism: On the tracks of men and money

Nature News and Views (27 Mar 1986)

RESEARCH

Walking with dinosaurs? Not in the real world

Nature Correspondence (07 Dec 2006)

In the footsteps of dinosaurs?

Nature Correspondence (02 Oct 1986)