> I checked to see if she has come out in support of Jeffrey Epstein or something crazy like that, but no.

Bro she blurbed "The War on Science," a book stuffed with racists and sex pests complaining that they lost their jobs for falling in love with their graduate students, writing them love poetry on tumblr, and then kicking them out of their research group because they could stand to be near them. Or for saying that they "don't shy away from the word superior" when discussing white people being better at running societies and lying about the GPAs of black students. Or for taking joking photographs with human remains.

And yes, the authors of the book include people who provided support in the legal defense of jeffrey epstein.

Yep, this exactly. Its completely unacceptable

And its not something that's just a 'you' problem - if you want the actual underlying issues in physics to be fixed, its a massive issue that the spokesperson for fixing those problem currently may be a bigot, or at the very least endorses bigots and sex pests. Beyond just being generally completely unacceptable, it allows everyone to completely dismiss whatever is being said very easily

For the other poster, ben goldacre is someone that's become very well known for making effectively the same points as sabine, but within the pharmaceutical industry. They sat down and basically wrote for decades about how the testing was absolutely broken, multiple books, a column, and producing lots of work on how broken studies were in medicine and talking to anyone that would listen - and as a result, they were actual able to enact effective change. It was a huge win for evidence based science!

Sabine is not someone who can achieve that in physics - her videos would be much more effective if they contained actionable content and concrete analyses of the issues. I'd have a tonne of respect for her if what she did was publish papers or videos showing the degree to which the literature was broken, analysing funding, conducting interviews (even if anonymous) with researchers, looking through examples of bad papers and explaining the problems to a lay audience. Producing a mixture of for-scientist and for-lay person material to break the figures down, in a way that produces a compelling argument

Instead we at best get specific examples plucked out of the air. I know she isn't massively overgeneralising the issue from my own personal experience, but she presents a terribly uncompelling argument as to why there are problems. Where's the data? Why are you writing book blurbs for sex offenders instead of writing papers?

That's why I've come around increasingly to the idea that she's a grifter, even though I used to enjoy her content (before it went out of the window) and think that she does likely genuinely care about the underlying problem to some degree. Its closer to ragebait than anything that feels productive now unfortunately. I don't think its even necessarily on purpose on her end - the right wing has a way of sucking in anyone on the fringes and giving them a home even without them knowing, but also why give her the benefit of the doubt?