<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[There are often graphic images in biomedical papers, such as photos of pathological lesions and developmental malformations.]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>There are often graphic images in biomedical papers, such as photos of pathological lesions and developmental malformations. A purely computational colleague of CS background was shocked by the graphic images in a paper whose single cell RNA-seq data I recommended for his analysis. However, biologists and clinicians are probably used to those pathological images and many of them have to work with the real thing. So question: Do you think scientific papers should have content warnings for graphic content? <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/science" rel="tag">#<span>science</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/medicine" rel="tag">#<span>medicine</span></a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/biology" rel="tag">#<span>biology</span></a></p>]]></description><link>https://postcall.pub/topic/002d8f81-06b5-4ca6-86ca-ae754d231757/there-are-often-graphic-images-in-biomedical-papers-such-as-photos-of-pathological-lesions-and-developmental-malformations.</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 02:00:43 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://postcall.pub/topic/002d8f81-06b5-4ca6-86ca-ae754d231757.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:49:28 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>