In light of @Nature's excellent editorial about why it makes sense to comment on politics (all the way, in their case, to making an endorsement), this is the Pew finding that is most relevant. Following the admonition to stick to science is conceding 1/n
the idea that scientists can be sidelined in policy decisions. "Stick to science" infantilizes scientists and tells us to sit at the kids table and let the adults decide. We must fight back. Here's the editorial: 2/n nature.com/articles/d4158…
Sure, if you ask if folks in the public if they lose faith in science if journals venture into politics, many will say yes. But they don't actually want science, they want scientific information they can use as they see fit. 3/n @Magda_Skipper@laurahelmuth@KBibbinsDomingo
This gives people the permission to say things like "climate change may be real, but I don't think we should have government regulation to deal with it," which is unacceptable. We can't concede that by letting people pick and choose. Good for @Magda_Skipper for speaking out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People are rightly focused on how the grad students at UC will get what they deserve for carrying most of the load of the most productive research entity in the world. But it's worth thinking through the underlying problems that created the situation. 1/n link.springer.com/article/10.100…
The underfunding of grad stipends is a symptom of the idea of supply-side science, which I reference in the piece above and is laid out here in another great piece by @NaomiOreskes. 2/n link.springer.com/article/10.100…
The supply-side model, first laid out by Vannevar Bush in 1945, suggests that science should stay on the sidelines and fill the journals up with great papers and let everything from there take care of itself. Clearly that doesn't work, see climate change, COVID, etc. 3/n
Here's my more serious take on the @eLife gambit/imbroglio. There are many reasons we can all come up with why it won't work or is a bad idea. But they're going to try it and you have to give them credit for trying to shake things up. @mbeisen 1/n
The addiction to journals starts at the institutions, so the question is whether this will dislodge that. Doubtful in my view having approved hundreds if not thousands of tenure cases. 2/n
Also, this is being proposed by people who already made it. What about the folks who are trying to break in? Have we heard from them about this? 3/n
This one will ruffle feathers. Here's my editorial on why we shouldn't tolerate any of the excuses for not adopting inclusive teaching and creating an inclusive learning environment. @vijisathy@DrMrsKellyHogan 1/n science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
I went to the @HdxAcademy meeting and debated Lujana Maroja at the UNC Public Discourse program to try to understand the arguments on the other side. Here is Maroja's essay where she disagrees with me. 2/n hxstem.substack.com/p/my-debate-wi…
I don't find any of the arguments persuasive and tried to eliminate them in the piece. We have experimental evidence that inclusive teaching works, we know stereotype threat affects performance, etc. These have been tested by social science repeatedly. 3/n
Some folks have asked me about the colleges reopening/closing. As I said in my column in May, I expected colleges to be "mostly online;" that has held up amazingly well. Over the last few weeks, I've watched a lot of people that I have worked with over the years 1/
struggle to make very hard decisions, and I'm sympathetic to the challenges they have. But two things I think are getting a little lost. One is that reopening for undergrads potentially endangers research activity and clinical activity when the hospital is nearby. 2/
So, the risks of bringing back undergrads needs to be weighed against the worry that graduate education/labs/clinics have to be shut down again. This is in addition to the things that folks have talked a lot more about correctly like risks to faculty and staff and towns. 3/