Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,384 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #93
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #94
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #95
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


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

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


  • Options
    #96
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #98
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #99
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #100
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #101
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #103
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #104
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


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

    :confused: what?


  • Options
    #105
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    :confused: what?

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


  • Options
    #106
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #107
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #108
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #109
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #110
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #111
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    ThinkProgress
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭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! :)


  • Options
    #113
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #114
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #115
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,585 ✭✭✭✭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."


  • Options
    #116
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #117
    degsie
    Registered Users Posts: 8,746 ✭✭✭degsie


    Probably some woman in HR took the hump.


  • Options
    #118
    Samaris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #119
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    degsie wrote: »
    Probably some woman in HR took the hump.
    I would't mind but I fancied that Hump Myself ;)


  • Options
    #120
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


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


Advertisement