There seems to be overblown moral panic on both the right and left side of this issue.

I'm curious if anyone can think of historical examples where two opposing moral panics arose simultaneously. Does one eventually win out? Do we end up in some moderate middle ground?

It seems that is on "Nature Human Behaviour" only, supporting the idea that sociology is just politics disguised as science

Or at least that this is not a real scientific journal.

"Ideologically impure" reminds me to "degenerated art". Horrible terms from a fast approaching past.

I'd understand and ethics and review tribunal process that is open and transparent but this doesn't look like that at all.