Nobel Laureate: Female Scientists cause trouble for men in Labs.

ThinkProgress

Samaris wrote: »

Eh. I'm a woman in the sciences and what this guy has to say doesn't bother me at all. You get this sort of ****. You slag them off and eventually they sort themselves out or retire in disgust.

Mind you, as a female who is fairly shy and who -can- cry in certain types of stressful situations (believe me, I find it frustrating and annoying too), I would be very irritated to think that this would reflect badly on all females. Personal reactions should reflect on oneself and no-one else.

Eh. I think he was talking about HIS experiences. That's hardly an objective "double blind" conclusion!

Who is more likely to be sympathetic to your female emotions in that instance, a man or a woman? (Typically speaking)

Whenever a woman cried in my workplace environments, the vast majority of men looked like deer in the headlights. Not a feck!n clue what to do! lol

sullivlo

ScienceNerd wrote: »

In my experience, these uber powerful PIs can sometimes be a little... odd.

I was at a conference where Watson was the keynote speaker. He said many controversial things in that hour. He is also sexist, racist, and believes that we should populate safety studies for drugs with terminally ill people as they're dying soon so we should get use out of them first.

Top guy.

I've met him several times since. Still the same.

ScumLord

Riskymove wrote: »

latest

Sounds like maybe he meant it as a joke, maybe in poor taste but the media have blown it up into a global outrage.

sullivlo

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think people realise how stressful an environment a lab can be. You'd be forgiven for crying.

I don't think people understand just how invested in experiments we get, or how tiring it can be to be in the lab, or the pressure to produce results, or any of the other stressors. I've cried in the lab, and I'll openly admit that, especially to the PhD students who are stressing about finishing and working themselves into a tizzy.

Crying happens in every profession.

I've never cried when my PI criticised me though. At least not in front of my PI :pac:

steddyeddy

sullivlo wrote: »

I was at a conference where Watson was the keynote speaker. He said many controversial things in that hour. He is also sexist, racist, and believes that we should populate safety studies for drugs with terminally ill people as they're dying soon so we should get use out of them first.

Top guy.

I've met him several times since. Still the same.

I've heard that about Watson. A true scumbag who made his name by stealing a woman's work.

YFlyer

My supervisor was chairing a session at some conference years ago.

There was this woman Dr. Little given a presentation on 'Women in Science.' When she finished, my supervisor said 'what a lovely talk by the little lady.' There was rupture. I heard that only the males in the audience laughed.

He was forced by the female scientists off the Chair for the remaining of the session.

blinding

He certainly is entitled to his opinion. Well Mostly who isn't ?

He is an old man brought up in different times. This may have been his own experience which he may have caused or mis-interpreted.

The interactions between todays young people are totally different to when he was young.

Give him a bit of leeway. How much more falling in love has he got in him and how much more reducing people to tears has he got left in him ?

PizzamanIRL

Hey there Miss Scientist, would you like me to whiten your lab coat even more?

YFlyer

sullivlo wrote: »

I don't think people understand just how invested in experiments we get, or how tiring it can be to be in the lab, or the pressure to produce results, or any of the other stressors. I've cried in the lab, and I'll openly admit that, especially to the PhD students who are stressing about finishing and working themselves into a tizzy.

Crying happens in every profession.

I've never cried when my PI criticised me though. At least not in front of my PI :pac:

There was a professor here in UL that would have his post grads and post docs on campus every Saturday for meetings.

They were stressed out from the work load he demanded every week. Some of them broke down crying.

stinkle

sullivlo wrote: »

I don't think people understand just how invested in experiments we get, or how tiring it can be to be in the lab, or the pressure to produce results, or any of the other stressors. I've cried in the lab, and I'll openly admit that, especially to the PhD students who are stressing about finishing and working themselves into a tizzy.

Crying happens in every profession.

I've never cried when my PI criticised me though. At least not in front of my PI :pac:

Ditto. But it is a stressful environment to be in, and it can be awful when it seems everyone else is muddling along nicely and you are struggling.

He seems to have backtracked from his comments and said it was a "joke". it's easy to write him off as a chauvinistic dinosaur, but I (female) wouldn't be laughing if he was someone I had applied to work with or had to collaborate with. Imagine working for someone like that and requesting maternity leave/parental leave etc? I've worked alongside women who were terrified of announcing their pregnancy to oddball PIs. It was like being a teenager and having to tell your dad!

People with his influence often have all sorts of responsibilities within the university system too, not just running a research group. He may be or have been a department chair, for example and would have a lot of influence on other academics. Bad attitudes from those in charge permeate down. Not to mention that universities are only too delighted to have the cash that a Nobel Laureate on staff brings in so there's a reluctance to bring them to task when someone complains about them.

NachoBusiness

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What do you mean?

Think she's implying he might be a bit of a.. runt.

NachoBusiness

Sexy sexist* gets sexist debating sexism..

*The one sitting to the left of Kay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBiS4qTsjCg

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Sexy sexist* gets sexist debating sexism..

*The one sitting to the left of Kay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBiS4qTsjCg

I almost cried laughing watching that video


The face on the science tutor throughout most of it -







ps: You're not allowed to observe that the science tutor was attractive, that's objectification, hence why I made no commentary on the blonde Hugh Grant

Maybe if the girls stay in the girls labs and the boys stay in the boys labs, the boys won't steal the girls' work and pass it off as their own for a nobel prize
Although going by wiki there's a lot of stealing going on

ancapailldorcha

Well, this thread has gotten a lot busier.

steddyeddy

That woman is talking absolute bollox about a gender imbalance against women in science at the moment. There was mostly women in my undergraduate degree. There is currently nothing stopping women doing science.

Edit: that's a little harsh. What I mean is no one should listen to anyone telling them they cannot do something. I come from a disadvantaged background and all through my life and even today you will hear some bigots saying that disadvantaged children don't want education as much as richer children. If I didn't enter science because of their opinion well I'd have no one to blame but myself.

In short I don't think women are so fickle as to give up on a dream in science because some sexist bastard says they aren't as good.

diomed

This would have made a great Carry On film .... Carry On Scientists.

AndonHandon

I think the main thing to take from his comments is that more scientists are socially inept than are not.

GLaDOS

AndonHandon wrote: »

I think the main thing to take from his comments is that more scientists are socially inept than are not.

Because 1 guy is sexist, the rest of us are socially inept?

I mean, I am, but that shouldn't reflect on the rest of them :pac:

c_man

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe if the girls stay in the girls labs and the boys stay in the boys labs...

And what about the 50 or so other genders?? You pig!

AndonHandon

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Because 1 guy is sexist, the rest of us are socially inept?

I mean, I am, but that shouldn't reflect on the rest of them :pac:

Haha

/ruffles ScienceNerd's hair

This guy!

K4t

blinding wrote: »

He is an old man brought up in different times. This may have been his own experience which he may have caused or mis-interpreted.

Give him a bit of leeway.

But surely if he is as intelligent and smart as everyone says he is, he more than most men should be capable of realizing that sexism is wrong? I'd wager he does know that he was stereotyping but simply chose to do so anyway. Kind of sad, and does the field of science no favours.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What do you mean?

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Think she's implying he might be a bit of a.. runt.

What he said.

steddyeddy

K4t wrote: »

But surely if he is as intelligent and smart as everyone says he is, he more than most men should be capable of realizing that sexism is wrong? I'd wager he does know that he was stereotyping but simply chose to do so anyway. Kind of sad, and does the field of science no favours.

Intelligent in one way. Plenty of people who excel in one field but are completely racist.

K4t

steddyeddy wrote: »

Intelligent in one way. Plenty of people who excel in one field but are completely racist.

Of course. But my point is that surely in 2015, living in the Uk, this great scientific thinker can rationalize his thoughts regarding women? It seems strange that he can't. Which is why I would say it's simply that he won't. He admits himself that he's a "chauvinist", but he's more of a prick imo.

AndonHandon

steddyeddy wrote: »

Intelligent in one way. Plenty of people who excel in one field but are completely racist.

Equally, just because he has made these comments does not mean he should be removed from his position in the research team as the comments have nothing to do with the work he is employed to do.

AndonHandon

AndonHandon wrote: »

Equally, just because he has made these comments does not mean he should be removed from his position in the research team as the comments have nothing to do with the work he is employed to do.

They do if his attitudes permeate the workplace and adversely affect the people he works with.

Removed might be a bit extreme, but it would do a dinosaur like him no harm to be made do some sensitivity course or something. Might encourage him to engage his brain before he opens his mouth on the matter again.

AndonHandon

Candie wrote: »

They do if his attitudes permeate the workplace and adversely affect the people he works with.

Removed might be a bit extreme, but it would do a dinosaur like him no harm to be made do some sensitivity course or something. Might encourage him to engage his brain before he opens his mouth on the matter again.

"Sensitivity" course so he can deal better with women who cry easily?

AndonHandon

AndonHandon wrote: »

"Sensitivity" course so he can deal better with women who cry easily?

No, sensitivity so that he gains the skills to recognise when his foot is firmly in his mouth.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

They do if his attitudes permeate the workplace and adversely affect the people he works with.

Removed might be a bit extreme, but it would do a dinosaur like him no harm to be made do some sensitivity course or something. Might encourage him to engage his brain before he opens his mouth on the matter again.

This. I've seen too many academics put get away with all sorts with students and post grads.

AndonHandon

steddyeddy wrote: »

This. I've seen too many academics put get away with all sorts with students and post grads.

Male doctors are by far the worst. The ultimate chauvinists.

steddyeddy

AndonHandon wrote: »

"Sensitivity" course so he can deal better with women who cry easily?

Sensitivity so half the lab doesn't feel uncomfortable around the dinosaur.

Thank god for my lovely boss. He's a great boss and an even better friend, we have a great laugh together. Working with good people is such a joy and makes every day a pleasure even when the stress is boiling. I can't imagine the misery of having to work with the likes of Tim Hunt.

frostyjacks

Candie wrote: »

No, sensitivity so that he gains the skills to recognise when his foot is firmly in his mouth.

He should be free to speak however he chooses without the flippin' thought police breathing down his neck. It's not like it was hate speech.

steddyeddy

K4t wrote: »

Of course. But my point is that surely in 2015, living in the Uk, this great scientific thinker can rationalize his thoughts regarding women? It seems strange that he can't. Which is why I would say it's simply that he won't. He admits himself that he's a "chauvinist", but he's more of a prick imo.

I'm sure he thinks he's being rational. Like you said he's a pr1ck.

K4t

frostyjacks wrote: »

He should be free to speak however he chooses without the flippin' thought police breathing down his neck. It's not like it was hate speech.

True, it was more like stupid speech. And when one says stupid things, one should be prepared to be challenged. As a man of science, he should know that better than anyone.

AndonHandon

AndonHandon wrote: »

Male doctors are by far the worst. The ultimate chauvinists.

Absolutely has never been my experience.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

He should be free to speak however he chooses without the flippin' thought police breathing down his neck. It's not like it was hate speech.

He's free to say what ever stupid outdated crap he wants. Everybody else is free to think less of him because of it.

hatrickpatrick

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think people realise how stressful an environment a lab can be. You'd be forgiven for crying.

Can say this about a lot of sci/tech environments. I've known programmers of large corporate websites and projects who are sometimes driven to tears when the site is meant to go live at 9AM, it's 5:30AM and PHP is throwing up a parse error on line 523, when the actual syntax problem is eventually discovered to be on line 14. And I wouldn't judge them for that for even a moment.

@frostyjacks I believe 100% in unfettered freedom of opinion and speech as most here know, but that doesn't mean we can't call someone a feckin' eejit or discuss how something utterly vile they've said is saddening. I don't believe in firing people for exercising that right, however if one expresses an opinion which subsequently creates problems among their colleagues, there's a possible case for it. For instance, if I went on a racist rant about black people and I was on a research team with four black people all of whom now found it understandably difficult to take me seriously, there'd be a legitimate case for removing me from the team. It wouldn't be merely about removing me for making distasteful comments, but for making comments which essentially abused some of my colleagues. Would you not say that's a reasonable case?

For instance, if you were on a board in Australia and one of your colleagues was heard saying "God I hate working with Irish people, all they do is get locked and screw up their work, really they shouldn't be allowed to work in this company", how easy would it be for you to have a decent working relationship with the same man in the future?

Cold War Kid

frostyjacks wrote: »

I can see his point. There are women in our office who, when work gets really busy and stressful, often get all emotional. You just have to accept that's how women behave. It's a price worth paying though in this nice weather when they get their pins out.

The guy just seems like a clueless auld fella - somebody mentioned an old Sheldon Cooper, nails it IMO. I wouldn't want people to be too harsh on him.

Stuff like the above post is much worse IMO. At least Hunt has the excuse of being 70 and brought up in very different times.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There is also a study in the Journal Of Scientific Studies of Science that found that segregation in schools led to higher levels of gayness.

Led by a leading scientician.

kowloon

Hot women in your local virology research lab!

People fall in love with workmates all the time, it's not restricted to any job, it's called life.

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Led by a leading scientician.

It's solid work, I don't see your black belt in scientinalitologicallity.

Junkyard Tom

kowloon wrote: »

It's solid work, I don't see your black belt in scientinalitologicallity.

I believe Cold War Kid has a 'level 4 feng shui' in astroscientificalism.

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
For instance, if you were on a board in Australia and one of your colleagues was heard saying "God I hate working with Irish people, all they do is get locked and screw up their work, really they shouldn't be allowed to work in this company", how easy would it be for you to have a decent working relationship with the same man in the future?

You would also have to give some weight to the possibility that his words make it more likely that Irish applicants might suffer discrimination in recruitment to the company or in allocation to roles within the company.

A person who is known to be prejudiced against any group should have no influence on recruitment, promotion decisions, assignment of work, or appraisal or staff. Even if a particular decision is not influenced by the prejudice, the perception that it might have been is a problem that the organisation does not need.

StewartGriffin

He's applauded for being an accomplished biochemist, not a politician.

In the future everyone will have to have a PR agent.

steddyeddy

StewartGriffin wrote: »

He's applauded for being an accomplished biochemist, not a politician.

In the future everyone will have to have a PR agent.

He's one of the best biochemists in the world but for the sake of people that work under him he should be more sensitive.

StewartGriffin

steddyeddy wrote: »

He's one of the best biochemists in the world but for the sake of people that work under him he should be more sensitive.

Well he's not.

But he's still a great biochemist.

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You would also have to give some weight to the possibility that his words make it more likely that Irish applicants might suffer discrimination in recruitment to the company or in allocation to roles within the company.

Exactly, particularly if he was in a position of influence or actual authority.

A person who is known to be prejudiced against any group should have no influence on recruitment, promotion decisions, assignment of work, or appraisal or staff. Even if a particular decision is not influenced by the prejudice, the perception that it might have been is a problem that the organisation does not need.

I'd say the same about Irish politics and scandals. Even for example if it's discovered that nothing untoward happened with regard to DOB and IBRC, their trust and credibility is shot to the extent that the state needs to sever all ties with as many of that crew as possible.

None of that IMO violates the principle of free speech. You're not firing or cutting ties with someone just to punish them for airing something you find offensive, or bowing to pressure from lobbies - but because there's a tangible and obvious reason to believe that such views will impede their ability to do their job as part of a team.

steddyeddy

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Well he's not.

But he's still a great biochemist.

That's great if he works in a lab on his own but government money is used to pay his wages. He deals with undergraduates, PhDs and postdocs in his lab and is paid to do so. Researching isn't the only part of his job. He's involved in hiring and dealing with employees so he also needs to be professional.

He's also an ambassador of science and should be careful what he says.

StewartGriffin

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's great if he works in a lab on his own but government money is used to pay his wages. He deals with undergraduates, PhDs and postdocs in his lab and is paid to do so. Researching isn't the only part of his job. He's involved in hiring and dealing with employees so he also needs to be professional.

He's also an ambassador of science and should be careful what he says.

Ok, I accept all that.

But he is what he is.

Would you curb his ability to use his talent as a biochemist because of his failings in the above?

hatrickpatrick

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Ok, I accept all that.

But he is what he is.

Would you curb his ability to use his talent as a biochemist because of his failings in the above?

Like I said, it's not so much about curbing him deliberately as a punishment, it's more that the next time a female genius is approached to work on a project, they might well say "well like I mean, he believes I shouldn't be in the lab in the first place so I don't particularly feel like working with him" - and they'd be totally justified in feeling that way. I'd certainly find it difficult to work harmoniously with a woman who'd made some anti-male rants and who I knew looked down on me because of my demographic.