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
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.
Trip to our favourite bluebell woods. North Cliffe Woods are just over 20 miles from York and gorgeous on a warm spring morning - walking through a haze of blue. @YorksWildlife
They were featured in the latest issue of @YorksWildlife magazine, so I don't feel so bad about sharing the 'secret' of where they are!
Followed by lunch 3 miles down the road at North Cave Wetlands from the excellent Butty Box - you can take your artisan coffees and fancy sandwiches, and once in a while swap them for a Bacon & Egg Roll and a good cup of tea (£5.70).
This is Mo. Mo was trafficked to the UK when he was 9 to work in modern slavery. In future, unaccompanied children like Mo, who arrive on boats, will simply be offered accommodation until they are 18, then sent back to their country of origin, or somewhere like Rwanda. #r4today
This is Dominic. Dominic's Jewish father escaped the Czech Republic as a 6-year-old when the Nazis annexed it in 1938. If Dominic's father had ended up on a boat, with the new laws, he would have been sent back to Prague in 1950, once he reached the age of 18 (or sent to Rwanda).
This is Rishi. His parents were economic migrants, coming to the UK to make a better life. In future, without a legal route, people like Rishi's parents who end up on boats would be sent back or deported to Rwanda, in spite of what they could offer with their skills & hard work.
There is real tension here. As educators, we design degrees to be good value for high fees. They require (especially in sciences) ca. 35 h/week in termtime to succeed. Yet because of the costs, our most disadvantaged students can't afford to fully engage. bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-…
I don't think the answer is to cut-back degrees to a 'part-time' undertaking. Instead, we should properly fund disadvantaged students so they can dedicate energies to study. If govt refuse, we must think seriously about making proper, top-quality, part-time degrees available.
However, do we really want to live in a country where the wealthiest can graduate a degree in 3-4 years, while the most disadvantaged need 6-8 years to get the same qualification? Higher education is a right for all, and should be equally accessible to all.