Slashdot Mirror
'Science Must Clean Up Its Act' (scientificamerican.com)
Our science community still struggles with diversity, equity, and inclusion issues, including systemic bias, harassment, and discrimination among other things, writes Heather Metcalf, mathematician, computer scientist, social scientist, and also the director of research for the Association for Women in Science. From her piece, in which she has shared both personal anecdotes and general examples, for the Scientific American: [...] Take the recent March for Science. Nearly two weeks ago, scientists and science supporters gathered in Washington, D.C, and around the globe to stand up for "robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity" and put forth a vision of science that "serves the interests of all humans, not just those in power." However, in its attempts to remain apolitical and objective, the march focused primarily on funding and communication aspects of its mission while losing sight of the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged. [...] In the early days of its organizing, the march offered up a strong statement of solidarity acknowledging the complacency with which the scientific community as a whole has handled issues that primarily impact marginalized communities: "many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent -- attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues. Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination. In order to move forward as a scientific community, we must address and actively work to unlearn our problematic past and present, to make science available to everyone." This messaging was removed and replaced after much pushback, largely from white men, about the need to remain apolitical and objective. These debates resulted in many women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ scientists, and their allies feeling ostracized and even receiving disrespectful and hateful messages about their place in science generally and in M4S specifically. Rather than standing up for a science that is available to everyone, these conversations and the march itself merely served represent an exclusionary science by reinforcing longstanding, divisive norms within the scientific community, all in the name of objectivity..
A dog-whistle for "funded by taxes"...
Because some people's jobs are too important to be paid for voluntarily, by the willing people desiring the fruits of their labors.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This is just a rant/op-ed.....at best
There's more signalling going on in this one summary than every stoplight in Manhattan.
An interesting hypothesis. Has it been put to the test?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Science is facing a raft of politically-motivated studies, rigged or suppressed medical trials, false or irreproducible results are rampant. But the big problem is "lack of diversity"??
I would think if you demanded rigor and accountability for the actual science part of the job, you wouldn't have to worry too much about who was doing the work.
Of all the places SJW types should stay the hell out of, aside from politics, its science.
The article has such a focus on race and other "ism" bent agendas that it pointed out the exact reason why it wasn't valid. SCIENCE doesn't care. It is a process, not an agenda. Trying to bend science to a liberal agenda is just as bad as it being bent to a political power elite agenda.
Dumb, dumb, dumb...
I've long held that the scientific community needs to take better care of its equipment. Running multiple experiments with unclean equipment will just lead to shoddy science! Controversial, I know, but there you have it!
I agree with the article that women would be great for these positions and would, in fact, clean up science's act. More power to'em!
In the three months leading up to the March for Science and in the days since, many in the scientific community engaged in heated debates about how political science and the march should be, especially around social justice issues. In the early days of its organizing, the march offered up a strong statement of solidarity acknowledging the complacency with which the scientific community as a whole has handled issues that primarily impact marginalized communities: “many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent—attacks on black & brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues. Science has historically—and generally continues to support discrimination. In order to move forward as a scientific community, we must address and actively work to unlearn our problematic past and present, to make science available to everyone.”
(Facepalm) I can't think of the words to describe how disgusting this is that some group of people would mix science and politics. The only point at which science might mix with politics is if politics is in opposition to science for political reasons. But this is different. This is pulling political issues into the scientific realm and that's just absolutely absurd and discredits science. NO NO NO. LGBT rights have NOTHING to do with science. Mass shootings have nothing to do with science. There is a reason why scientists are usually not politicians and vice versa.
We'll make great pets
I've read the article twice, but I still think I'm reading it wrong. Does he say that science should be more objective and apolitical, then complain that it is object and apolitical?
Life is too short and too important to { take seriously | use windows }.
Whiny social justice warrior demands science be primarily a political tool for her pet causes, complains more when told science is supposed to be apolitical about facts and reproducible experiments - and can't resist implying that those things are bad because she was told so by scary 'old white men'.
Maybe Heather Metcalf should shut the hell up and spend some time thinking about why the 'old white men' are right and she's a complete idiot. Scientific American does itself a disservice by letting her post this crap under their banner, blog page or not.
Any issue you may see with the sex ratio of scientists or treatment scientists tend to receive based on sex or gender, whether they're famous or toiling in obscurity, or sex or gender issues in the community at large... has nothing to do with whether or not science should a political arena. It should not. Science seeks facts and understanding, what we do with that is the arena of politics.
I'm more interested in how the author's going to relate unclean water, poverty wages, LGBTwhatever "rights" etc to pushing for the progress of *science*. Science exists to answer questions, it's not about social morality, unless you're into sociology or related fields. I'd rather see some hard-core science being funded than any "science" funds diverted to social funds. There's other avenues for that, and science itself as a field shouldn't need to worry about it. As for the M4S, you don't want to distract from the primary purpose, which, amazingly, isn't a statement about social conditions but rather about a dedication to science. Any "backlash" the author thinks they see is merely a refusal to dilute the message and we should applaud the M4S for not diluting their message.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Wow. In general, I am sympathetic to the goals (although not always the rhetoric) of "social justice warriors"-- social justice is, in fact, something we should strive for, and I'm in favor of that part of the pledge of allegiance saying "with liberty and justice for all" as a goal that we should aim for, even if somethings we fall short of the mark.
But this article is just wacky. “many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent—attacks on black & brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues."
No, actually most of these just aren't "scientific issues". Scientists, of course, can and even should have opinions on these subjects, but, really, these aren't scientific issues-- these are social issues.
If these issues were left out of the march for science, there's a good reason: they didn't belong there. They are issues needing a consensus by society as a whole.
Rags like Scientific American and National Geographic have over the past few years lost the reason people loved them - because they were objective, and 'above the fray,' and have instead become political mouthpieces... In the early twentieth century the Editor of National Geographic declared that his magazine would be 'apolitical' and apart from momentary bias -- but in the last few years that principle has been ditched, due to so many reporter types going through a lengthy indoctrination process that puts politics above truth..
I can't be the only one extremely disappointed with this article.
The subject "Science Needs to Clean Up Its Act" was so promising - and then its about how the scientific community needs to be more PC - more diversified - more accepting of participating in peoples' personal self-image and validating them - less harassment.
Science *does* need to clean up its act. It needs to harass scientists who publish nonsense that can't be replicated. It needs to purge administrative non-sense that clouds the pursuit of truth. It needs to blacklist scientists who publish fraud, and those who use fake contact information to peer-review their own research.
Instead of trying to broaden scientific pursuit to LGBTXYZ by making scientists acknowledge their white cis privilege and beg forgiveness, science needs to bleach its festering sores clean of festering disease, clinically diagnose and treat the cancerous tumors in its ranks, and make science EQUALLY appealing to everyone of any sex, race, creed, or religion who wants to pursue scientific achievement absent this horrific PC attitude.
...have nothing to do with science. They have everything to do with the politicization of science, which turns science into something else.
Science: Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Special interest groups: Yeah but woman and minorities and not white men and political correctness, how are you supporting that?
Science: Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Special interest groups: Yeah I don't see how you're supporting our agenda on equal rights for human behavior etc.
Science: Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Special interest groups: Science is discriminating against us! Down with "their" science.
The problem you see is that women have had equality of opportunity for decades, and have yet to reach parity by the metrics feminism chooses to measure (basically fraction of cushier highly paid positions held by women.) Any suggestion that this is due to the choices women make and / or natural aptitude is about 15 types is *ism and makes you literally Hitler. Thus the solution wasn't to give women the same opportunities, but to demand equality of outcome (or "equity") because god forbid being an overweight women with one leg should preclude you from winning an Olympic gold in the Men's 100 meters
I especially like the part where the pushback was "largely from white men", meaning that it can be safely ignored because their input doesn't count.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Take Gender Dysphoria as an example. It is roughly just a mental state where one feels that one's secondary sexual characteristics don't conform to one's feelings about which gender you are. It is essentially a mental illness. That's all it really is. Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion? Unlikely...
This is politics, plain and simple. Once you understand that, everything is easier to understand. There is no political push for real, objective science because the cold truths about the universe would "trigger" every political faction in modern politics at some point, everywhere from Communists, to anarchists and in between.
the need for a science that addresses human freedom and prosperity for all, not just the privileged.
I'm hitting that point where "the privleged" is just an overused buzzword.
"many issues about which scientists as a group have largely remained silent --
. . . ADA access isn't really a scientific issue. It's political. And one that has largely been won in support for the disabled. ADA compliance is pretty damn strict and if anyone finds non-compliance they can sue for thousands to millions. It's a settled issue.
Clean water is likewise pretty settled. We need it. The issues in Michigan are economic ones. The science is pretty clear: Lead fucks you up.
LGBBQWTF rights are most certainly a political issue, not a scientific one. Figuring out if furries are born with it or have been brainwashed by cartoons is a question for science. What to do about it is a matter of politics.
And that's the crux here. Science INFORMS and GUIDES policy. Science doesn't say SQUAT about what to do with immigrants. It can cut through the lies and bullshit and point out the facts and truth of the matter... but not what we ought to do about it. Now, obviously if a proposed solution or policy is argued on points that are simply shown to be false thanks to scientific research, then that's a bad policy. But if you go to sociology 101, chapter 7 isn't "how to fix race issues".
Science has historically -- and generally continues to support discrimination.
WHOA there. Whoa. If science supports discrimination, then you've suggested we ought to discriminate. You got the priority of these two issues backwards. If the science says it's true, it doesn't matter if it's unpleasent.
pushback, largely from white men,
Way to be sexist and racist about it.
all in the name of objectivity.
. . . YES. If science and scientists can't remain objective and allow bias to taint the results then the science is BAD. And that will cause everyone to discard your findings.
The replication crisis is present in every field. Publish or perish creates fucked up incentives that guarantee shit science.
Whatever this bint is whining about is not a real problem, at least not at the importance and scale that she claims it is. If she wanted people to take systemic bias seriously, she should clean her own house first. The social sciences are little more than rationalization factories for fringe political ideologies. If you didn't talk like an activist zealot, maybe you would have some credibility, and people wouldn't balk at being associated with you.
Of course, for these activists, that is a feature, not a bug. They claim to speak for all women and minorities, people want nothing to do with them, they then use that as evidence that people want nothing to do with all women and minorities. It's a self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing delusion.
The reason is simply that the high paying jobs are rigged in such a way that only men want to do them. So we have to create new C-Level positions that favor women!
Think I'm kidding? Think nobody would demand that?
Just wait 'til the first "gender studies" majors graduate and notice that the best they could hope for with a degree in gender studies is a job that includes the phrase "you want fries with that".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Some socially valuable things aren't profitable
Name one. All things are potentially profitable. There is a thriving private space industry now when it was claimed only governments could really explore space...
Also another side question, what does "socially valuable" have to do with science anyway? I think there is the root of your problem, and the problem of the current scientific community. Science is about building tools and fostering an understanding of an issue, without judgment or preconception. In that regard modern "science" is often anything but.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...and at worst it is guilty of what it sets out to campaign against because it dismisses the idea that scientists should "remain apolitical and objective" as coming from "white men". This a violation of the basic rule of science that you consider ideas on their merits not based on who said them. Ironically it is also a textbook example of racism and sexism because it suggests we value an idea less because of the race and gender of the people suggesting it.
Her willingness to put her own personal beliefs before scientific values shows a complete lack of objectivity, This, together with her openly racist and sexist rant, does suggest that she might actually have a point though. This sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable for someone calling themselves a scientist and so if science is going to clean up its act giving her an education in basic scientific principles would be a good place to start.
Is it in a tobacco company's interest to pay for all of the facts of the research that merely correlates cancer with smoking
No - but it is in an *insurance companies* interest to know that. There is always some party who gains benefit from knowing the truth.
What's wrong with cases favouring *robustly funded* science?
As always, the certainly of graft, corruption, and the pushing to the side of REAL science in the rush to prove some assertion is true regardless of facts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Scientists have scientific results and publish them; if you check Metcalf's scientific publication record, it's pretty much non-existent.
Science should "clean up its act" by making it clear that people like that are not scientists, don't speak for scientists, and aren't welcome in the scientific community.
The inability to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement is what separates astrology, social "science" and "climate science" from astronomy, biology and meteorology.
Whenever we want to start the science game we need:
1) a list of observations, if observed, would prove our hypothesis false;
2) an argument that the lack of those observations excludes all other explanations other than our own (including the null).
Ignoring this cornerstone of the scientific method leads to scientism, rather than science.
Because departments run by LGBTQ and similarly "disadvantaged" people produce such high levels of scholarship:
http://www.skeptic.com/reading...
That white men should just quit- just get out of the way of people of color, whom they are repressing :
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
Look in a money and resource limited environment, we have to make hard decisions about what and who is important and what and who is not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Because feminists have sooo much to offer science, so much keen insight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That it would be a pity to let the entire social justice left be excluded merely on the basis of their inability, their differently abledness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Like the Revivvalism of the turn of the century and Scientology today, social justice is a literal cult. Unfortunately it's a cult that threatens the rational and scientific basis of Western civilization and if left unchecked, which it largely has been, will reduce the West to Feminist Lysenkoism and a and ethnic and gender-based totalitarianism.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/L...
The time for passivity and tolerance in the face of civilization-deconstructing psychosis is past. It's civilization or it's the race hatred, gender-cidal cult of social justice. It won't be both. I know I have re-engineered my career to effect the total, permanent and irreversible extermination of this disease and I enjoin anyone of good will- man woman white black brown gay or straight- to join me.
Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
This is a key that is so often overlooked.
The article is right about several things. There are abuses, there is discrimination, and there is harassment. Those absolutely should be identified and eliminated.
However, we are talking about humans who have actual preferences. Even if opportunities are equal, people have preferences. When offered a formal dinner with plate choices of Steak, Fish, and Veggie entrees, the general popularity for steak isn't because of a "bias in the system".
Nobody seems to care that 99.6% of drywall installers are male, there aren't documentaries about how the drywall installation business is biased against women, or research how women have no chance to succeed in their drywall career. Same thing about 99.9% of bricklayers and stonemasons are male. There is a little discussion about how 99.5% of firefighters are male, there are a few more women in the ranks, but generally people accept that these are going to be male-dominated fields.
Similarly, there isn't much anger about how 91.1% of registered nurses are female, no outcry about how men don't want to be nurses. In fact it is the opposite, I know a few men who are nurses at a nearby hospital, and they talk about discrimination and bias the opposite way, against the males. Where is the outcry that 94.1% of childcare workers are women? Instead the outcry is about how men getting into child care must be quietly pedophiles and are potential rapists. Just like above, people accept that these are currently female-dominated fields. (150 years ago nursing was male dominated, but it shifted during the big wars a century ago. Shifts happen.)
Even though it is gender biased, computer programmers have been gradually drifting away from male dominated fields, from about 91% in 2007 down to about 82% today based on US DoL statistics. Some schools even report equalization of women to men graduating in CS and engineering, and a small number have seen it cross over completely with more women graduating than men.
The article includes discussion of LGBQ groups. The groups make up about 3.5% of Americans so it shouldn't be any surprise that they make up a tiny minority of scientists. The group makes up a tiny percent of the general population, so it would be quite surprising indeed if they were clustered into a specific career field.
So yes, I agree in general with the article that abuses, discrimination, and harassment need to be addressed. But like the grandparent post mentions, equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome. Some careers are more attractive to different genders, hence the male bricklayers and female childcare workers. Many science fields seem to be more attractive to certain groups and not to others, that is not inherently a problem.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Stop offering opinions on Politics, Economics, and Religion and STOP issuing doomsday statements in an attempt to garner attention. If you're wrong, which inevitably we are often slightly mistaken, 100% of your research will be thrown out for one bad fact.
Example: It's impossible to even have a rational discussion about global warming anymore.
Dr Piper Harron, writing on the AMS "Inclusion/Exclusion" blog, informs us:
"If you are a white cis man you almost certainly should resign from your position of power."
A reply from an anonymous University mathematician serves equally well as a reply to Dr Heather Metcalf.
"We are all painfully aware of the inequalities in faculty composition and trying hard to fix it. *Every* math department I know of is trying really hard to hire every qualified minority and female applicant out there (and by qualified I mean: a *very* generous ballpark within the hiring range of each department). The real problem is that there are not enough such candidates, and most departments end up making offers to the same few that are available in the market each year. By the way, our departments are aware of the problem, and so are our Deans and higher administration. In my experience, they are all very supportive of us hiring under-represented minorities, even offering additional positions when such opportunities occur, *as long as we conform with the laws*, and as long as the hire is within the 'generous ballpark'."
In other words, departments are willing to lower the standards for minority and female candidates, by a "*very* generous ballpark", with the consent of the University administration; but they are still unable to find sufficient candidates.
It is no wonder that there is "pushback" from white men; or that women and minorities are treated with suspicion as having benefitted from "affirmative action".
This is a big reason climate change science has so much pushback. Instead of being just science, it has aligned itself with a particular political leaning.
Yes, I agree with bondsbw-- you have this backwards. Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science.
And, more notably, a particular political leaning aligned itself against climate science.
The overall conclusions of climate science have been known since way before the issue got politicized. The science hasn't changed-- it's gotten more detailed, but it hasn't changed. (That's the way science usually works: first the broad principles are understood, and then more and more details are filled in.) The science would be the same if the opposite political polarities had decided to be for and against it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And here I thought this would be an article about the sorry state of science today, ignorance of basic statistical principles, pretending science can answer questions it can't, pretending results prove things they don't, inability to replicate results and structural lack of attempts to replicate results (doesn't get you published), etc.
Instead, more SJW meta-issues. Cleaning up its act apparently has nothing to do with its actual act.
Does anyone seriously think she's going to support Science when the evidence says that it's a mental illness, not just an opinion?
Just an opinion? What? I don't know what you've been reading, but why don't you give this a skim and then maybe you can speak a little more sensibly on the topic.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
For-profit firefighting also exists. There have been cases of them refusing to assist a non-subscriber; that's one way to deal with free riders.
Letting their families burn to death? You mindless, vicious fuck.
Private police forces exist in many contexts
Yeah, they are called death squads.
Rural condo associations have their own sewer systems.
And when those private sewer systems flow shit into someone else's drinking water, then what?
Of all the mindless clowns on this thread, you take the cake. As you always do.