I think it's less "But keep this confidential" and more "This is an off-the-record remark," sort of like something a colleague might say in hushed tones in a hallway. I think the point whoever wrote this at the time was trying to get across was to try to tell her to shut up and not ruin a good thing, if not for herself then for other people. To their credit, they have somewhat of a point in that: speaking up against this will hurt people, even if it does make for better science and even if it's the right thing to do.

I have absolutely no idea why she published this, suddenly and with such vitriol after having already covered it, today of all the times - but my hunch is that it might only be because the US grant funding system is currently coming apart at the seams that she's comfortable finally stopping with pulling her punches. I mean, what more damage can it do? Most of these people are losing their funding anyway - her speaking out isn't going to cost anyone a grant, and not outing the person who pulled her aside directly isn't going to cause anyone any permanent reputational damage.

It's all ethically self-consistent and makes a sort of sense, even if it's not what I'd personally do. But I haven't walked in her shoes, either.

> I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". In research, you believe in what you do.

I'm glad you know good people! Sincerely - it's reassuring to hear.

I'd love to believe that all science and all researchers are as noble of heart as this, but there is a clear and documentable issue of fraud in the sciences that points to systemic issues in how science itself is incentivized and performed - none of this is a secret. So many people go into science (and stay in science!) for all the best reasons, but it is not exactly a stretch to imagine that, despite relatively recent high-profile exposures, there are still people out there even today doing some or all of their jobs in bad faith.

Perhaps the author's commentary about "all other areas" had to do with that fraud even back then (the letter was written seven years ago, the video said) - I don't know. To be fair, it wouldn't be that difficult to find at least one major episode of academic fraud in every major hard science discipline at this point, so I personally really don't think the "all" here is exactly doing that much heavy lifting. I also get the impression reading the letter that the author may not have been a native speaker of English, so perhaps giving them (and, consequently, Sabine) the assumption of good faith here and hand-waving the "all" into a "many" would be a sensible thing to do here.

> For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here.

Does this speak to her audience? Of course - she makes her living off her YouTube channel. But that doesn't really discount the message.

The timing is odd, though, and makes her look oddly partisan in a way that hasn't agreed with other things I've seen her talk about on her channel (which I do watch). For what it's worth, I'm no scientist but I've been in academia myself - please believe me when I tell you there's plenty of corruption and grift in the humanities, too. I have stories.