I wear a few medical devices which talk to each other, and other things, wirelessly. I have seen firsthand that the main device can connect to a computer and obey a command to download its history without any indication showing on the screen, no beep or other indication that anything is going on. If it can do that without my permission, what else is it open to? Could it obey a command to, say, silently overdose me?
It is clear from my experience that these devices were designed with convenience in mind, both for the user and the doctor's office, and with security in mind not at all. My worry is mitigated some because I don't believe anyone has it out for me personally.
As long as the collection of cells is not proven to be self aware I do not believe it matters what they do with those cells.
You haven't been proven to be self aware, so it doesn't matter what people do to you, either, I suppose?
Oh you say... sure you've been proven to be self aware? Not to a philosopher's satisfaction, you haven't. You can't disprove the solipsism hypothesis. So I haven't been proven to be self aware, either. Not to your satisfaction, anyway.
So don't be so fast to demand proof of self-awareness. I'm upset on behalf of brains in vats, because they can't protest on their own behalf. They deserve, philosophically, our great caution, lest someone else be quick to deny you or me our rights.
The cull comes after similar discoveries of 'fake peer review' by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing "reviews from fabricated reviewers". The practice can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication suggest reviewers, but supply contact details for them that actually route requests for review back to the researchers themselves.
Overall, this indicates an incredible amount of sloppiness and laziness in the peer-review field. In total, more than a 100 papers have been retracted, simply because the journals relied on the authors to provide them contact information for their reviewers, never bothering to contact them directly.
A continuing flow of paper is sufficient to continue the flow of paper. -- Dyer