• ‘The Lancet’ was wrong to remove the Buddha depiction

    The cancer of political correctness and respect for the beliefs of others has already begun to affect scientific publications.

    Turns out that as a complement to a paper on the treatment of malaria in Cambodia, June 2015 edition of The Lancet Infectious Diseases had a cover depicting the Cambodian Buddha contemplating a mosquito:
    The journal got tons of complaints for using the depiction of the statue in a non-religious context. (In fact, some raving dude accused them of having no sense or sensibility and, to top it, he said they were doing the same as Charlie Hebdo — making it sound like it’s a bad thing! That ought to be a badge of honor!).

    So The Lancet cowards bowed to pressure and issued such a lame excuse, it’d have been better if they’d just kept silent:

    At the time of publication, we were not aware of any proscription against picturing statues of the Buddha. However, given the complaints received, the illustration was taken down from the journal’s website on May 22.

    The new cover is as exciting as listening to a chess match on the radio:

    This is not just a bad sign for free speech, but it is a bad precedent for science — what will The Lancet do when very picky churchgoers choose to be offended with the conclusions of one of their papers? Judging by this bad decision, those will also be removed, lest they offend the illiterate.

    (via Why Evolution Is True)

    Category: PhilosophySecularismSkepticism and Science

    Tags:

    Article by: Ðavid A. Osorio S

    Skeptic | Blogger | Fact-checker

    One Pingback/Trackback

    • Ricardo Palacios

      I propose that the May 25th must be the day of drawing Buddha.

      • Ricardo Palacios

        Sorry, the 22th.

    • Sarah

      It’s amusing. What’s funny is you’re basically crying because it offends you that they changed the picture. It doesn’t hurt anyone it, it doesn’t actually change anything significant, but it offends your political principles and you’re presumably worried that this will add to a slippery slope towards more of these sorts of changes – but the fact is the magazine is a private enterprise that can change whatever picture it feels like for whatever reason – and no matter how much that upsets you you’re no better than the buddhists/lone christian who were upset for their own reasons. You’re both upset and want to see a change – or a reversion of the change – because you feel your feelings, political or religious, should be taken account of…
      Full disclosure. I made this comment at WEIT first but it didn’t go through because Jerry is a giant crybaby who banned me ages ago for calling someone he obviously liked unscientific. No trolling just disagreement.

    • Pingback: What's with this Lancet's Drug Commission member? - Avant Garde()