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..
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...
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 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.
...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.
I'm old-school, and only know the first 4 of those, which are of course: Liquor, guns, bacon, and tits.
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
There is a thriving private space industry now when it was claimed only governments could really explore space...
The initial work on space was very, very expensive and had very low returns. It may well have been done by commercial entities eventually and over a much longer period of time, but then we wouldn't be enjoying all the benefits of it today. No satellites, for example.
It's the same with a lot of medical research. The basic, risky stuff gets done by publicly funded institutions like universities, and then commercialized when there is a clear way to profit from it. Again, you could argue that if we simply waited the market would do that research, but then we would still be dying of stuff that can be easily cured today.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC