Paimon

How did Trump suppress research and free thought? On the contrary, is Trump not the one being suppressed and censored (e.g. deplatformed for all social media etc)? You also mentioned that he made a mistake of saying that the virus will go away on its own. Fauci, with decades of experience in virus, said in early days that wearing mask was not effective. So that mistake (especially from the expert in the field) is fine but Trump was so egregious that Nature had to get political? Finally, from a scientific methodology point of view, how does one measure the level of egregiousness? On what basis can a "scientific" argument be made that Trump is more egregious than Biden?

Quoting some scientists is not an issue here. The issue is not giving equal weighting on both sides of the story and not sufficiently quoting the scientists who argue for investigation on China. It's the bias of the "scientific journal". If multiple scientists would argue for investigation on China and try to submit their work in Nature, do you think Nature will publish it?

What were the egregious disparagement of science by Trump? And based on what methodology did Nature decide that Biden was less egregious than Trump? Will Nature also be scrutinising Biden or is Nature's scrutiny only for Republican presidents? "Allegations that COVID escaped from a Chinese lab make it harder for nations to collaborate on ending the pandemic — and fuel online bullying, some scientists say". What would you make out of that sentence? It's direct quote from that Nature article.

Okay i have deleted the last sentence since "conspiracy" is not allowed here.

Standard academic and research establishments are becoming increasingly political. Top journals like Nature, Science, Lancet etc. all support the same political parties and ideologies. One example is Nature supporting Biden here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x. Can one trust the objectivity (core principle required for hard science research) of Nature after it supports one political party over another? Nature also constantly protects China as if it is a propaganda mouthpiece for China rather than a scientific magazine. It says that we should not debate the lab leak hypothesis of coronavirus because that annoys China and we need China at all costs (e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01383-3). In the aforementioned link, Nature implies that we need China's cooperation so we should not investigate China or try to hold it accountable for anything (including possible crime against humanity).