Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Criticizes Role of Women In Labs

An anonymous reader writes: Tim Hunt is an English biochemist most notable for winning the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine. Today he's become notable for something else entirely — at the World Conference of Science Journalists, Hunt suggested science labs should be segregated by gender. He said, "Let me tell you about my trouble with girls three things happen when they are in the lab You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry." As you might expect, this set off a firestorm of criticism. Many asked Hunt to treat women in labs with the same respect he is afforded, and others held it up as an explicit example of the sexism that pervades the scientific community. Hunt later issued an apology, saying, "I'm very sorry that what I thought were light hearted ironic remarks were taken so seriously, and I'm very sorry if people took offence. I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings."

20 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. One of James D's pals, no doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The good news is if he runs into tough times, a Russian businessman will buy his Nobel at an auction and then give it back to him.

  2. And what if he's right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since this DOES happen, what's the fix? Pretending that there's no shenanigans going doesn't make it any better.

    1. Re:And what if he's right? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since this DOES happen, what's the fix?

      The fix is for people to deal with it, like grown-ups. Office romances happen across the entire working population. If people are idiots there's fallout. So far the world has survived, and nothing needs to be done to fix this.

      Also, if you want to fix it, what do you do about gay people? segregate them out so you have one gay person in an all-straight office of the opposite gender? And just isolate those awkward bisexual people on their own?

      Nothing needs to be done.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:And what if he's right? by danlip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the problem is not so much the office romance but the office breakup. Yours worked out because it didn't result in a breakup.

    3. Re:And what if he's right? by stephanruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Since this DOES happen, what's the fix?

      We fire the guy for speaking his mind. We replace him with a female scientist.

      And we pretend that this very kind of problem doesn't happen in any of the female-dominated professions.

    4. Re:And what if he's right? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, that said, employers are entitled to setup policies as they see fit: I just think such policies are generally repressive and don't address the heart of the issue.

      Without intending to start a general Libertarianism-is-good-no-it's-bad argument, I'll just say that I think employers that think it's okay to try to control their employees' private lives in that way are despicable. It is none of your business what I do outside of work, and if you think it is, then fuck you.

      I'm not saying regulations against a direct supervisor dating a subordinate, or stuff like that, are offensive. But there is a very clear line, and that line is at preventing clear, work-related conflicts of interest that would be caused by the relationship. And even in that case it's more respectful to have a policy like "report it so we can deal with the conflict of interest through reassignment, etc." rather than "don't do it".

      Oh and segregating a workplace by gender is so stupidly ridiculous that it would honestly shock me if anyone not in the cultural orbit of backwaters like Saudi Arabia proposed it seriously. So I'm going to assume this guy wasn't serious, because he'd have to be such a shithead to seriously suggest that that it's more likely he was joking.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  3. Re:Married and having affairs by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ever think that she might have been the women he fell in love with at the lab?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. Re:FFS by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What you have said sounds profound but isn't at all.

    Am I offended? Nope. I'm too jaded, thick skinned and argumentative to be that easily offended. Do I think it's an idiotic thing to say? Yep.

    But if I was offended by idiotic things people say on the internet, I'd be in a permanent state of offendedness and that's not very fun.

    Also just because politically correct[*] has turned into a disease, doesn't mean that people being idiots is not a disease.

    [*] Politically correct started off as the name describes. Things you couldn't say without inviting political fallout, whether party politics or jockeying politics in some other organisation. Things like "women belong in the kitchen" etc. Of course, people being idiots, people mutated it into all sorts of stupid things.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  5. Then why say "you" instead of "I"? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I was just being honest about my own shortcomings -- by talking about what 'you' do when there are women in the lab. 'You', of course, being a straight male, because duh, who else would I be bothering to talk to about science?"

  6. Let this be a warning. by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In a world where the Internet gives every crackpot a soapbox from which to preach to his fellow crackpots, it's not longer possible to distinguish ironic self-deprecation from a serious but deranged complaint about other people.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking? by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What idiot can be so humour-impaired as to not realize that Hunt was just kidding? And it was a pretty tame, light-hearted joke at it.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  8. Re:Critized for sharing his observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hyperbole much?

    No one said he should be stoned to death.

    Saying that women should not even be allowed to work with men is not the same as "mentioning both genders" or "speaking about gender differences".

  9. Re:Trollbait by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just because it was a joke doesn't mean it's okay. There are lots of jokes about, say, black people or Jews that people find offensive and aren't suitable for retelling at a conference about issues facing black people or Jews. They are offensive because they work to set those people back, by re-enforcing stereotypes and laughing at them.

    Maybe the media has overreacted, but as this Slashdot debate shows there is still a clear need to talk about it because a lot of people seem to think it is okay, and a lot of people disagree, and there is conflict that needs to be resolved.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. So is this the "new apologizing"? by qeveren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I'm sorry you were offended. I'm not sorry for what I said."?

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  11. Re:FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's actually pretty insulting to men as well, as if we can't be around women without falling in love with them.

    Since when is the truth insulting? Not every man will fall in love with every woman. Not every man will fall in love with any woman. But when you put a number of men in daily proximity and contact with a number of women, some men are going to fall in love with some women and there are going to be issues. ("Fall in love with...", of course, actually covers a huge range of responses including "...wants to get into the pants of ...")

  12. Re:This man is a fool by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's unfortunate.

    People say all sorts of stupid, ill judged things when one's brain isn't as fully connected as one might wish it to be. I know I have. I'm glad none of them have been broadcast to the world.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Re:Trollbait by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can't find Blazing Saddles funny, it's you who is broken.

    Recognizing that there are differences between men and women is not sexism; lack of equality of opportunity is. Pretending we're all the same is moral cowardice at best; equal opportunity to succeed differences and all is a laudable goal; enforced equal outcomes is simply evil.

    They are offensive because they work to set those people back

    Ah, the soft racism of lowered expectations. "X people can't overcome life's normal obstacles, so we all need to treat them special, since, you know, they need our help".

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  14. Hey, girls, you want my HONEST opinion...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    See, this is what happens when a guy gives his honest opinion. So he shuts up, and the girls start whining about why he won't talk about his feelings! You cannot have it both ways, ladies!

  15. Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism by danlip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Acknowledging the consequences of gender is not sexist.

    Yes, but calling for segregation is. So is stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence). He said both of those things.

  16. Re:I'm Not Sorry: It's Not Sexism by JustNiz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    >> stating that women are not capable of handling criticism (unless you've got some objective evidence).

    you're either
    a) female
    b) been single all your life
    c) found and dated the one woman on the planet who can handle criticism calmly.