I don't know where to begin with this...
He says racism is a societal problem but science is not, because it sits above it.
He shrugs his shoulders and says we need patience for diversity to work its way through the system.
It's complacent and it's wrong. quillette.com/2020/07/03/rac…
Science, as an endeavour, is a construct of society. It, and the people doiing it, have all the same biases as wider society. People then recruit people who look and act like them, people who have similar backgrounds who they can bond with. #unconsciousbias
This wholly non-diverse body of scientists then become the face of science, and the next generation of diverse kids look up at them and think, 'that career isn't really for people like me'. Lack of diversity breeds lack of diversity.
What you have to do is disrupt the system. Deliberately. Question hiring decisions. Hire diverse people who can not only do great science, but can inspire the next generation of scientists across the whole of society. In this way, science can get the very best of ALL the talent.
HIstorically, science has been amazingly productive while mostly being done by rich and middle class white men. Imagine how many more amazing things science could do if it was properly able to speak to the whole world, and recruit all of the best of humanity's talent.
Once you've got that talent, you have to put it in an environment where it can thrive. An environment that genuinely doesn't care about race, sexuality, gender, disability, age etc.
Science is not bad at that - because it does value ideas - but, and it is a huge BUT - there are big expectations of how your career should look, hours you should work, conferences you should go to, the way you should network and behave. These do not support diverse scientists.
So what can we do? One simple step. When hiring, do your first sift of applications on blinded proposals - do NOT look at the CVs or names. Judge the ideas, not the person. Then later, only use the CV to check the person has the skills to deliver on their amazing ideas.
And don't tell me to be patient. How long is it going to take? Noone will ever convince me that the best way to change something that's obviously wrong is by doing nothing. Be part of the change, or else you are just propping up the system.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Timely to highlight the life and work of Ben Barres.
Ben was a remarkable biologist who transformed our understanding of brain function. Born in 1954, he transitioned from female to male in the late 1990s.
In his research, Ben and his team gained an understanding of glial cells, and importantly showed that astrocytes could damage the brain - an important breakthrough in terms of understanding a variety of neurodegenerative disorders.
Ben wrote eloquently about the process of transitioning, reflecting: “I am not aware of a single adverse thing that happened to me as a result of my being transgender, but there was immediate relief of all emotional pain as a result of my transition.” thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-coming-out…
It's timely to highlight the life & work of computer scientist Lynn Conway.
In the late 1960s, she transitioned from male to female and was sacked by IBM as a result. For some years, she went underground and, for the rest of her career, worked as a woman - herstory unknown.
Under the legislation of the 1960s, Lynn was denied all access to the children she had previously had with her wife.
Lynn went abroad for her surgery, all alone. She had lost not only her career and professional reputation but also her family, relatives, friends, and colleagues.
In the late 1970s, working (in her words) in 'stealth mode' as a woman, Lynn developed very large scale integration (VLSI) of computer components, a key breakthrough in computer science, which enabled the modern computer and ultimately put smartphones in everyone's pocket.
On autism/ADHD & behaviour.
Over the weekend, I have read lots blaming autistic children for their behaviour, or suggesting poor parenting is to blame.
Autism & ADHD are *disabilities* that can impact on behaviour - to fail to understand this is simple disability discrimination.
When neurodivergent children are dysregulated, and in a bad environment, they can struggle to behave.
This is an inherent part of their disability.
You cannot 'make' them behave by shouting at them, in the same way you cannot make a blind person see by yelling in their face.
Schools cannot 'make' neurodivergent pupils behave by giving them a suspension - you wouldn't expect someone in a wheelchair to start walking because you sent them home for a week. Autism can be just as disabling.
The way to address it is to build an inclusive environment.
In 2018, trans rights were broadly accepted - even Theresa May proposed legislation to treat trans people with dignity. In 5 years, Stock, Bindel, Rowling, et al, have created a toxic environment where trans people are demonised and fear for their safety. That's their legacy.
This Pride, all I read, is hateful & degrading rhetoric against trans people. Although gender critical people have the right to believe what they want about sex, that does not give them carte blanche to abuse trans people or discriminate against them in the provision of services.
I urge people to meet real trans and non-binary people, talk to them, understand them as individuals. Phobias feed on 'othering' people - once you count someone as a friend, phobias melt away. We are all human - this Pride can we try and see others as human.
Bempton Cliffs - Seabird City. England's best onshore seabird colony. Didn't get lucky with puffins today, they are mostly egg-sitting in their burrows, but the gannets and razorbills were great. @Bempton_Cliffs
29 scientists write about 'merit' in science and use this figure to 'measure' it. First, I should emphasise we all want great science. Also, merit is not opposed to diversity as the authors suggest - noone wants bad science. The problem is those axes... journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236
Who decides importance?
Is it scientists who go to conferences with buddies and set agendas?
Is it editors based on what gets cited?
Is it rich governments deciding national priorities?
Is it disadvantaged citizens in developing world?
All have different views and priorities.
When we get down to individual levels, and recognising scientists, should we consider resources used? Is it more meritorious to develop a new chemical reaction with a team of 60 and huge national funding, or a team of 2 and a little local support? Simple measures ignore context.