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

steddyeddy

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?

No but where did you see me say he's not a great biochemist?

StewartGriffin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Then I think you're choosing to be offended. You could loath your colleague on a personal basis, but still get on and do the work. Having a great personal relationship or even great respect for a workmate is not a necessary criteria for getting great work done. It would be nice to work with perfect people, but I suspect it's very rare.

StewartGriffin

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but where did you see me say he's not a great biochemist?

what?

steddyeddy

StewartGriffin wrote: »

what?

It's not hard to understand. I'm saying no one is contending his caliber as a scientist.

StewartGriffin

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's not hard to understand. I'm saying no one is contending his caliber as a scientist.

Are you talking to me? Are you drunk?

Saipanne

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Gee bag is gee bag and upsets people and blames them.

Just because someone is learned about one particular topic does not elevate them to emotionally intelligent, kind or a decent human being.

Dick says dick things. His job has nothing to do with it

/close thread.

Oh my God, the thread didn't close!

steddyeddy

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Are you talking to me? Are you drunk?

No I'm writing to you. If you hear someone talking it's the voices in your head mate.

StewartGriffin

steddyeddy wrote: »

No I'm writing to you. If you hear someone talking it's the voices in your head mate.

I'm outrageously offended and am henceforth going to bed. Goodnight Sir!

hatrickpatrick

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Then I think you're choosing to be offended. You could loath your colleague on a personal basis, but still get on and do the work. Having a great personal relationship or even great respect for a workmate is not a necessary criteria for getting great work done. It would be nice to work with perfect people, but I suspect it's very rare.

That's not the point though, it's not about being offended. I totally agree that offense shouldn't be used to justify anything. My point is, if I knew she regarded men as an evil or a problem or whatever, then I'd be well justified in not trusting her to work fairly with me or to fairly represent any contribution I might make. If you know someone believes that you shouldn't be where you are because of your demographic, it's not remotely paranoid to imagine that they might try to sabotage you in order to fulfil that belief. This kind of stuff happens all the time even between people who don't have any demographic prejudice among them - falsified results, falsified HR claims, snide words behind one's back to other colleagues / management, etc.

Someone who comes out with views like those expressed in the OP clearly has issues, and issues which would make anyone in the targeted demographic legitimately worried about what might happen if they were forced to work together.

Let's take another example. If a Jew declined to work with an outspoken Neo Nazi, would that be unreasonable? It certainly wouldn't be in my book, and again it'd be nothing to do with being offended.

darkpagandeath

In other news a shirt can overshadow one of the landmarks in human history.... That turned out to be made by a woman that was a gift.

ThinkProgress

Blackcat Laika wrote: »

What if he's right?

Doesn't matter, I figured that out quite early in this thread.

Never mind that he must have removed the "distraction" from his lab, and at some point got back to work... Earning a Nobel prize for his efforts. :P

But all the keyboard intellectuals on here are too wise to consider the views of some foolish old English public school boy from a less enlightened generation!

Cold War Kid

It's become extremely fashionable to have a problem with people for criticising something that they find objectionable.

What would segregation of the sexes achieve? Why should all be segregated because some women are more prone to emotion (and yes, generally speaking, women are more emotional; whether this is innate or more to do with it being socially unacceptable for men to cry, I don't know) than others?

If you fall in love with someone at work/simply want to have sex with them (this happens in any workplace) be a grown-up and deal with it.

I have said he's an auld eccentric so I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it and wouldn't like to see him get too lambasted - but he's also a self confessed chauvinist.

I'd be interested to know why some people are so keen on defending his comments.

Samaris

Blackcat Laika wrote: »

Because what he said is true. Women in a group cause trouble, it's been understood for thousands of years.

No men ever do, of course. All men get on perfectly well together as one happy family of happy happy productive people!

The problems he spoke of are all pretty minor and silly things. Any adults should be able to work around it.

"You fall in love with them.." - your problem, be an adult about it and keep your feelings outside the lab. If you want to ask them out for whatever outside the lab, fine, unless they're reliant on you in some way (student-teacher, references, etc.), in which case, act appropriately.

"..they fall in love with you..." - their problem, and they need to follow the above too.

"..and they cry when you criticize them" - Well, be impatient with tears on an individual basis then. Or if you are consistently causing people to dissolve into tears around you, maybe the problem is you!

Seems easy enough overall. Daft to demonise half the human race in terms of scientific achievement, just holds the entire human race back. Impractical nonsense.

osarusan

He has resigned.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33090022

University College London (UCL) said Sir Tim Hunt - a Royal Society fellow - had resigned from his position within its faculty of life sciences.

He told a conference that women in labs "cry" when criticised and "fall in love" with male counterparts.

He told the BBC he "did mean" the remarks but was "really sorry".
'Emotional entanglements'

A statement from the university read: "UCL can confirm that Sir Tim Hunt FRS has resigned from his position as honorary professor with the UCL faculty of life sciences following comments he made about women in science at the World Conference of Science Journalists on 9 June.

"UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome is compatible with our commitment to gender equality."

Samaris

osarusan wrote: »

He has resigned.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33090022

Poor eejit. It was dumb of him to make those comments, and in my view, they're wrong, but I respect the work he's done in his field.

degsie

Probably some woman in HR took the hump.

Samaris

degsie wrote: »

Probably some woman in HR took the hump.

More likely the university facepalmed because this sort of thing damages them. Female students feel that if they go to a uni where this sort of thing is said with no repercussions, then they are paying their money to be treated as lesser students, and who the hell wants that? So yes, Hunt's words materially damage the institution that he represented.

I feel slightly sorry for him, but at the same time, the man is old enough to have some sense along with his brains.

blinding

degsie wrote: »

Probably some woman in HR took the hump.

I would't mind but I fancied that Hump Myself

The Corinthian

The scientist in question opened his mouth and put both feet in it. Even if you agree with anything he said, how he did so was daft and asking for trouble in the current political environment. At the very least he could have expressed his views in a more gender neutral way, especially given that much of what he cited is not a problem specific to either.

Samaris wrote: »

"You fall in love with them.." - your problem, be an adult about it and keep your feelings outside the lab. If you want to ask them out for whatever outside the lab, fine, unless they're reliant on you in some way (student-teacher, references, etc.), in which case, act appropriately.

"..they fall in love with you..." - their problem, and they need to follow the above too.

You don't shìt where you eat. Simple as that.

Many years ago, I interviewed a female developer whom I judged to be an excellent hire. The only thing that bothered me was that she was gorgeous, I was smitten and was very concerned that this would be a serious issue in the workplace if I gave the recommendation to hire her.

However, I determined that this was my problem, not hers. She was the best choice and I would be doing a disservice to both the company and her if I did not hire her for this reason. So I recommended she'd be hired, she was, I bit my lip and in time whatever crush I had passed and she was an excellent colleague and employee.

Of course, another colleague lacked this discipline and what followed was some creepy behaviour for which he had to be rightly reprimanded.

It's about professionalism and discipline, not about gender.

"..and they cry when you criticize them" - Well, be impatient with tears on an individual basis then. Or if you are consistently causing people to dissolve into tears around you, maybe the problem is you!

Sorry, but I can't stomach this. Workplace bullying is not acceptable, but I've seen this nonsense too and frankly they can't do their job if it becomes an issue.

In this regard, I think men have an advantage because we are essentially trained from childhood to take the punches. Girls are not. It's a throwback of when men were expected to be the one's who needed to keep it together in a crisis, while it was presumed that women could not control their emotions and would become hysterical or 'faint'.

In recent years there's also been a move towards everyone becoming more emotional. Sure, men can afford to do this from our traditionally expected levels of stoicism, but being overly emotional; being unable to suppress or control emotions in times of stress is a moronic ideal that probably is best put in a sack and drowned in the nearest river.

That you're beginning to see some men go in this direction and cry when criticized (it happens) is not a good thing.

Cold War Kid

Poor auld dude - don't like him feeling forced to go that far. He just seems utterly clueless rather than malicious.

Samaris

I don't disagree with you on all that, The Corinthian. In general, I do agree with "don't **** where you eat", but I'll also accept that things happen, and things develop. But whatever about keeping it outside the lab, and being professional within it, it absolutely shouldn't go on where one party is reliant on the other in some way or another.

Regarding the crying business, nggh. It goes both ways. The onus is on the person being criticized to have a certain level of thick skin to be able to take criticism on the nose, decide if it's fair, and deal with things after that. However, there is also a certain onus on a person in the position of power to have a certain level of emotional ability. They will get the best out of people if they know how different people react to certain situations and manage them appropriately. Some people will take more from a snarky comment than they will from the problem being outlined. Some people will absolutely take sarcasm to heart and get alarmed and inclined to make more mistakes around the person if they feel nervy about being watched. Especially if they're new or inexperienced. Some people will take a bawling out and resolve to show X that they can do the work. Some people, again, will perform better if treated with a modicum of gentleness.

It is certainly not ideal to dissolve into tears when getting a verbal clip around the ear, but it's also not ideal to just not bother understanding how colleagues and people under you work.

sullivlo

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/06/10/7-deadly-dangers-women-science-tim-hunt/

These are probably more accurate than Tims issues :pac:

TheBeardedLady

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Poor auld dude - don't like him feeling forced to go that far. He just seems utterly clueless rather than malicious.

Yeah I couldn't help but feel sorry for him having read he stepped down from his position. Clueless beyond belief though and he kept on digging even in his apology. I can't imagine why anyone would feel it was appropriate to say such things at a conference like that; it's hard to be angry with a person who seems to lack basic cop-on. I don't think there was any malicious intent to offend there, as you said but I think stepping down was the right move if he is a chauvinist.

PressRun

What he said was pretty crazy, to be fair. I have three female friends who are scientists and work in labs. They don't cry when they're ideas are criticized and they don't strike up relationships with people they work with. They're professionals, just like the men they work with.

The guy openly admitted to having a reputation for being a chauvinist, so I don't really see why he should continue working in education. If he openly admitted to having a reputation for being a racist and thought that black people were more prone to certain beahviours in a lab than white people and thus couldn't work with them, he'd face criticism for that too. He can think whatever he wants, but to bring those ideas into a learning environment where we're trying to encourage positive attitudes towards the sciences among young people is a whole other matter.

StewartGriffin

The Corinthian wrote: »

how he did so was daft and asking for trouble in the current political environment.

It is way too easy to destroy a man/woman's career in this "current political environment."

Not like in my day, you had to camp in a cold car and snap a few grainy Polaroids as they left a brothel or a mistresses house. Now all you have to do is ask a few leading questions and the "current political climate" and social media does the rest.

Dirty tricks are so easy these days.

NachoBusiness

It just goes to show how much power the PC Brigade shape the world today. They have so much power is frightening. 72 year old guy and he can't make a few tongue in cheek remarks. Fcuking Guardian types delighted with themselves. Look what this misandric twit has to say today that they have writing for them.

All this whinging about girls not going into science as a result of the guy's comments are farcical. It's just the usual sanctimonious drivel from the professional victims. It was at a lunch for female scientists ffs. If Tim was truly a sexist (to the degree he is being chastised for being at least) and his intention was for there to be less females studying science and working in the field he has excelled in, then he wouldn't have even bothered going along and speaking to these women to begin with.

So he made some comments that those present didn't appreciate but all that shows is how much they don't have a sense of humour and how they take themselves a little too seriously. You can be damn sure if some 72 year old female Nobel laureate who was renowned for her scientific findings was to give a talk at a a bunch of up and coming male scientists, and made some similar light hearted quips about how she noticed that often it distracting it was at times for female scientists to be working alongside male scientists, how often they would fall in love with them and how their male stubbornness was often a disadvantage in the lab, nobody would give a crap. I doubt it would even get reported tbh.

We live in the day where almost everyone that is asked to speak makes some self depreciating jokes and roasts whoever they are addressing. Check out any of the AFI Life Achievement Award videos on YouTube for many examples of that. Here's a clip where he called himself a has been recently so it is not like he only directs his style of humour at others. Oh and he met his ex wife in the lab by the way and so it's not as if the parts of what he said which he says he stands by the following clip where not him speaking from experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjNacy3QgP8

It's a God damn shame is what it is, when people are more concerned with with being politically correct than they are with showing some respect for a 72 year old who has quite clearly earned it.

The Corinthian

Samaris wrote: »

It is certainly not ideal to dissolve into tears when getting a verbal clip around the ear, but it's also not ideal to just not bother understanding how colleagues and people under you work.

Not ideal? If someone has that level of emotional frailty then they frankly cannot do their job.

I was very specific where it comes to bullying - this is unacceptable.

However, it's gone far too in the other direction too whereby no criticism of any type is possible. Someone with skin as 'thin' as that ultimately is incompetent and should be let go.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Fcuking Guardian types delighted with themselves. Look what this misandric twit has to say today that they have writing for them.

Last line of the article you linked to:

And yes, it is true that Tim Hunt has since said his comments were “meant to be humorous”. As an added bonus, why not check the comments below for people furiously arguing that this a complete vindication of Hunt’s comments while simultaneously taking this ridiculous joke article 100% seriously. People are fun like that.

From the author:

Dean Burnett is ahead of the curve and started being rubbish at science while still a relatively young man. He regularly demonstrates his incompetence on Twitter, @garwboy

Samaris

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not ideal? If someone has that level of emotional frailty then they frankly cannot do their job.

I was very specific where it comes to bullying - this is unacceptable.

However, it's gone far too in the other direction too whereby no criticism of any type is possible. Someone with skin as 'thin' as that ultimately is incompetent and should be let go.

I think our views are not as unalike as they might seem. I entirely agree that one needs a certain thickness of skin, but I am merely pointing out that if it's a regular issue around one, then maybe it's not just the teary people at fault. He seems to reckon that all women do it! There needs to be some responsibility on both sides in a supervisor/lab environment and a certain ability to manage people, as well as an ability on the labrats side to be managed.

Wibbs

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You can be damn sure if some 72 year old female Nobel laureate who was renowned for her scientific findings was to give a talk at a a bunch of up and coming male scientists, and made some similar light hearted quips about how she noticed that often it distracting it was at times for female scientists to be working alongside male scientists, how often they would fall in love with them and how their male stubbornness was often a disadvantage in the lab, nobody would give a crap. I doubt it would even get reported tbh.

I agree I doubt it would even register.

The Corinthian

Samaris wrote: »

I think our views are not as unalike as they might seem. I entirely agree that one needs a certain thickness of skin, but I am merely pointing out that if it's a regular issue around one, then maybe it's not just the teary people at fault.

By the same logic, if it is only a issue for the same teary person, even with the same colleague, then it could well be them at fault as the latter may well be behaving in a perfectly reasonable manner for all, bar the former.

He seems to reckon that all women do it! There needs to be some responsibility on both sides in a supervisor/lab environment and a certain ability to manage people, as well as an ability on the labrats side to be managed.

Of course, but I've already said this with regard to bullying.

Samaris

The Corinthian wrote: »

By the same logic, if it is only a issue for the same teary person, even with the same colleague, then it could well be them at fault as the latter may well be behaving in a perfectly reasonable manner for all, bar the former.

Quite so, but I made that point earlier that if you're getting this reaction a LOT, then it's probably you at fault, rather than just one person being overly-emotional means you're to blame.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree I doubt it would even register.

Reminds me of the movie Disclosure.

What could have been a serious film looking at sexual harassment, from the perspective of a man being harassed by a woman, ended up using Demi Moore as the harasser and an aging Michael Douglas as the victim.

Can't wait for the follow up where Hollywood explores female sexual abusers in a movie staring Megan Fox.

The Corinthian

Samaris wrote: »

Quite so, but I made that point earlier that if you're getting this reaction a LOT, then it's probably you at fault, rather than just one person being overly-emotional means you're to blame.

And if you're only getting reaction a LOT from ONE person? Had it not occurred to you in that scenario that perhaps they're the one with the problem?

sbsquarepants

Personally I'm a sucker for a woman in a lab coat. Particularly Kari Byron from mythbusters - she's a sexy woman all the time, but stick her in a lab coat....I'd definitely fall in love with her.....and no doubt her with me:D

Samaris

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if you're only getting reaction a LOT from ONE person? Had it not occurred to you in that scenario that perhaps they're the one with the problem?

Well, yes, as I've said numerous times at this point :P

Edit: At the very least implied, or agreed with.

Cold War Kid

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Poor auld dude - don't like him feeling forced to go that far. He just seems utterly clueless rather than malicious.

Yeah, he's a product of his time. He should have been asked to do some awareness course and the effect of that would have made him think before he opens his mouth and that could have been the end of it.

It's a shame he resigned, it means this mess will be the first thing many people know about him and his work. Still though, glad I don't work with him.

P. Breathnach

Candie wrote: »

Yeah, he's a product of his time. He should have been asked to do some awareness course and the effect of that would have made him think before he opens his mouth and that could have been the end of it.

It's a shame he resigned, it means this mess will be the first thing many people know about him and his work. Still though, glad I don't work with him.

His so-called apology was a non-apology - pretty well along the lines of "I'm sorry that people were offended" rather than "I'm sorry for what I said".

He had to go, because he put UCL in an impossible position. How could they tell a female post-grad that she would be doing her research work in a lab of which he was the head?

PressRun

He absolutely had to go. UCL is one of the best universities in the UK. It has a reputation to uphold, which includes being the first English university to admit female students on the same grounds as men. He brought the name of the uni into disrepute and created an awkward situation for any future and current female students who would have to work under his supervision in a lab. His body of work and contributions remain the same, but as far as being an educator and a mentor for young students getting into science, it's not appropriate.

steddyeddy

PressRun wrote: »

He absolutely had to go. UCL is one of the best universities in the UK. It has a reputation to uphold, which includes being the first English university to admit female students on the same grounds as men. He brought the name of the uni into disrepute and created an awkward situation for any future and current female students who would have to work under his supervision in a lab. His body of work and contributions remain the same, but as far as being an educator and a mentor for young students getting into science, it's not appropriate.

When are the Wiseman institute going to get rid of Watson I wonder? A bigot against women, Irish, homosexuals and blacks.

PressRun

steddyeddy wrote: »

When are the Wiseman institute going to get rid of Watson I wonder? A bigot against women, Irish, homosexuals and blacks.

No idea. And to be honest, third level education is full of these bigots. Senior positions in universities are cushy jobs and tend to be occupied by dinosaurs with totally outdated views. But once you're in the club, it seems it's very difficult to push them out. Plenty of universities could do with a clean out from top to bottom and some new blood brought in.

steddyeddy

PressRun wrote: »

No idea. And to be honest, third level education is full of these bigots. Senior positions in universities are cushy jobs and tend to be occupied by dinosaurs with totally outdated views. But once you're in the club, it seems it's very difficult to push them out. Plenty of universities could do with a clean out from top to bottom and some new blood brought in.

That's it exactly. I think it's a lot worse in England tbh.

The Corinthian

Samaris wrote: »

Well, yes, as I've said numerous times at this point :P

Edit: At the very least implied, or agreed with.

Fair enough, but it was not clear, at least to me.

Jimoslimos

P. Breathnach wrote: »

He had to go, because he put UCL in an impossible position. How could they tell a female post-grad that she would be doing her research work in a lab of which he was the head?

In fairness he was an honorary professor, a title as meaningless as the resignation. He'd never actually be in charge of a lab

kowloon

StewartGriffin wrote: »

You could loath your colleague on a personal basis, but still get on and do the work.

That's really difficult for us mere mortals. It might work in situations where you aren't in close contact with the person all the time, but a good atmosphere is pretty important in most jobs.

steddyeddy

There's a difference between loathing a colleague and not getting on with your boss because he discriminates against you based on your gender/religion/race.

K4t

steddyeddy wrote: »

There's a difference between loathing a colleague and not getting on with your boss because he discriminates against you based on your gender/religion/race.

Was he actually found to have engaged in discrimination against anyone though? Obviously he should have kept his thoughts to himself given his position, but to say he in fact acted according to those thoughts through the process of discrimination is surely speculation?

godwin

He's right women are proper whingers when the going gets tough, and they all want to ride me side ways @ work

PopePalpatine

godwin wrote: »

He's right women... all want to ride me side ways @ work

Yeah, I think I'm going to call bullsh*t on that.

The Corinthian

godwin wrote: »

He's right women are proper whingers when the going gets tough, and they all want to ride me side ways @ work

Now, now... you'll breach the terms of your parole again.