Thread by @usnehal

It is not about being "woke" per se as some people claim. It is about caring about measurable results & caring about human life. If you don't care about such things and are in #healthcare, if #equity is merely a hashtag or for "reputation management", you are part of the problem

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1343476008310206466

I understand some people feel those at the margins can be written off or just are not part of their consciousness, irrelevant. That position of privilege goes away in a pandemic. Those people you may disregard most of the time become highly relevant to everyone's wellbeing.

It is very attractive to break problems into little, manageable parts and to isolate yourself to a silo. Too much of science operates this way. Too many of those rewarded within #STEM go narrow and deep. Then the messiness of the real world is not addressed in solutions.

Evidence we only pay lip service to collaboration, cross-disciplinary work, etc.

However you build a system & design the incentives = results you get.

We generally reward narrowness ...which can result in narrow-mindendness

We have silos = out of touch

https://twitter.com/usnehal/status/1340377907085099013?s=20c

Academia is byzantine & "vicious" Can it really serve the vulnerable? It is probably worse than government for making changes to itself. At least government has accountably via elections. We need academic reform to have knowledge generated that serves all

aaup.org/article/why-ac…

While many on #MedTwitter literally put "snark" or "snarky" in their profile descriptions, what that alludes to is a culture of cutting each other down, power plays, word play, not a culture of collegiality/trust. Is it any wonder we are not trusted then?

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

Many of us have survived this gossipy, vicious, highly political setting.

We now may take pride in “snarks” - but that is a maladaption to dysfunctional system & culture.

It interferes with #SciComm for #PublicHealth like now in a #pandemic

#AcademicChatter #MedTwitter

On the other end of the spectrum, when it comes to engaging with business leaders

scientists/#STEM also fail to communicate effectively

are disregarded
or
laughed at (to their faces or after they leave the room) which I describe here:

explorethespaceshow.com/podcasting/umb…

This isn’t merely skills building

but #mindset change

must change the very values of (or what is valued in) academia

incentives must change

We can’t assume that people like this retiring & passing out of the system is enuf

wsj.com/amp/articles/t…

blogs.jwatch.org/hiv-id-observa…

People do not merely pass out of a system. They put into place incentives that remain. They promoted people who are now the ones hiring, disciplining, assigning committees, and/or promoting. Moving these paintings is merely optics: beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physi…

Further, it is not identity of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion that determine whether someone is ethical or collaborative. Yes, there are some trends (for collaboration) within certain demographics. But the issue is often about changing system and incentives.

Is it #empathy? Maybe but how do we get empathy? For whom?

If you read @paulbloomatyale empathy often fails. We really just center on ourselves.

Like, it takes having a daughter for a man to be more focused on gender equity, have empathy, be generous:

telegraph.co.uk/men/relationsh…

I guess I'm wondering for people who are self-centered and selfish, how do we get them to be less so and care more about others? This is a question philosophers have been wrestling with for ages. Will this pandemic cause people to understand we are interconnected? *sigh*

While it is easy to see the anti-maskers or the anti-vaxxers as "selfish", to what extent has #STEM not been sufficiently democratic, open, inclusive, and communicative in non-judging ways? How can we get the systems of academia to be reform and be trustworthy/trusted?