People are asking for example of something this particular set of rules would prevent.
An example that's already illegal in the most extreme sense of the word doesn't convince anyone.
This is a straw man. The only people who won't see it as such are those who already agree with you.
Unit 731 is extreme but consider the many invasive and painful experiments still done on chimpanzees. At what point does the suffering of the animals outweigh the benefits of the study? Showing that the balance is on the side of the benefits is a basic part of getting any work approved at universities and research institutions. Nature is simply aggregating some of the ethical guidelines already present in many of these processes and proposing them as a broader and more inclusive structure.
This is a proposed change in policy. People are asking for examples that were previously allowed but now would be forbidden.
> How about large scale human vivisection?
An example of something that was previously forbidden and is still forbidden is not helpful.
This is a distillation and synthesis of existing policies in place at hundreds of major institutions and organizations with their own ethics policies for qualitatively and quantitatively estimating the harms and benefits of proposed research.
An anthropologist disturbing a culture to document it is a trade-off maybe not worth making. A summary of behaviors found in autism spectrum disorders that is insufficiently inclusive of their lived experience is a bad idea. This is the kind of evaluation researchers need to perform sufficiently to justify their work (and their funding), and they do it all the time.
Increasingly they also need to evaluate whether they themselves are fit to perform that evaluation, and the guidelines here suggest situations where researchers may want to look outside themselves, situations which hitherto were not as frequently considered as, for example, race, religion, or income level. Being more inclusive on what matters should be thought of as potential sources of bias or inadvertent harm is not a change in policy, it is an acknowledgement that the existing policy was not sufficiently well delineated.
"Why are people mad when I want to censor science and make it worship my false idol ?? it's so unfair"
>These guidelines are very like existing ethics guidelines found at universities and research institutions around the world
Show me a respectable university that tells scientists to "Consult with advocacy groups" before they publish any results, and I will show you a university that used to be respectable but now isn't.
>If that causes them to second guess whether the research they are conducting is worthwhile
Ah yes, it's all them second-guessing themselves. This won't be used to censor scientists at all, those scientists will just, spontaneously, see the error of their bigoted and heretical science, and refuse to publish it by themselves.
>How about large scale human vivisection?
Nice try, but this is about research methodology. The posted censorship guidelines is dealing with the final results of research, the papers, not the used methodology. We had ethics board since the 1970s and 1980s, you're not inventing anything useful.
It's amazing how desperate some people are to try to justify their nonsense.
If you don't see what this is you are either sympathetic to this particular ideology or simply naive. Instead of attempting to dismiss criticism by invoking vivisection, which is unaffected by this policy change, why not provide some examples of immoral research that is currently being published that this policy will prevent.