First, I would like to say that I agree with the underlining message this editorial is trying to…
Teddy Joseph

So what other scientific material should be censored on the chance that a child MIGHT be present and MIGHT be offended (would a child know to be offended) and someone MIGHT complain and expect something more than a mild apology — which they wouldn’t even be entitled to — over, exactly? Should we censor presentations about climate change in case they offend deniers? Should we censor presentations about blood in case they offend Jehovah’s Witnesses? Should we censor presentations about snakes or insects in case phobic people might trip through the presentation hall?

Where exactly do we draw the line when deciding which science presented in a straightforward and factual manner is dangerous to the general public?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.