EXCERPT: [...] While political correctness may have begun as a method to improve the language or clarify ideas and possibly offer more gentle methods of discussing subjects, it has as of late turned into an entirely different creature where no longer are there plentiful examples of “how to say things,” rather it has grown to become a force of “what not to say” altogether.
What happens when the scientific method butts heads with political correctness and who should be the winner? That answer depends on where you stand on the issues. However, more and more they are butting heads and those who stand for the scientific method are not only losing out to those on the political correctness side, there are a growing number of cases where scientists are not just giving into the political correctness they are empowering it.
Take for example the most current case where Nobel laureate, English biochemist, Tim Hunt [...] Within days he was forced to resign or face being sacked according to his wife, Professor Mary Collins, “I was told by a senior that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked.”
This battle between science and political correctness is most disturbing in its lack of use of the scientific method, and since it has now hit home in the field of science itself, what this may mean for the future of science itself is now in jeopardy.
[...] The situation modern scientists are creating is a realm of not being allowed to make “ill advised” comments, even when they might bear truth. If that is the point we have come to can any claim to still be scientists anymore?
Irony is not abandoned in this situation when writers like Anne Perkins at The Guardian ask the same question, “Tim Hunt, where’s the science in your prejudice against women?” and then offers not a single example of science in her article. However, Ms. Perkin's question is the exact right question for everyone who cares about science to be asking. Shame is a rational choice, not science, and scientists must ask themselves is this the time to forfeit the scientific method in order to appease people's emotions or agendas? In regard to Mr. Hunt, the answer has already come in the affirmative....
Considering how quickly other scientists jump on the shun bandwagon to distance themselves from and get under the good graces of contemporary heretic and witch-hunt trends, this is just another nail in the coffin of rising suspicions about the venerated methodological enterprise that social media effects have introduced....
EXCERPT: Yesterday, as new accounts emerged, it was revealed that the critical initial reporting of that now infamous – and admittedly pretty awful – joke told by Sir Tim Hunt in Korea might have misrepresented his words in a potentially defamatory manner.
[...] Within a week the allegations led to Sir Tim losing an honorary position at UCL, a position at the Royal Society and another with the European Research Council. “I’ve been hung out to dry. They haven’t even bothered to ask for my side of affairs,” he said in an interview.
[...] Considering the reporters’ memories seem confused, as well as contradicting the arguably more reliable and impartial notes taken by the European Commission official, it would be reasonable to conclude it was a harmless but bad joke, as Sir Tim has always maintained. So why would it be perceived and/or reported as hate speech?
There is no evidence to suggest she intentionally mislead anyone, but St. Louis just so happens to be a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) with a history of making the accusation of bigotry against fellow science writers. She is clearly enthralled to the idea that Science is aggressively structurally sexist and racist, and has been using the episode and the coverage she’s generated to promote petitions, influence institutions and further political ends....
I'm convinced that people over the age of say 60 should not be given microphones, particularly if they are tucked away in labs or offices most their lives unenlightened by the natural influences of contemporary social interactions. This guy sounds like he walked straight out of a 50's sitcom. Should female scientists make coffee and answer phones too? Perhaps a separate Nobel prize for women discovering new cutting edge techniques for cooking casseroles?
That's actually the way the female scientist sidekicks look on CW's programs, which is a network predominantly aimed at younger audiences. The male protagonists are at least allowed to have George Costanza types as male sidekicks on occasion [attached file below]. But it seems to be some prescribed no-no for their lady counterparts to be anything below Mary Ann status on the brat and frat viewers' reference charts for plain-looking, average, etc.
It's possible that Tim Hunt's comments were a joke made about his own escapades dealing with his wife as a fellow(ine?) professor, rather than a generalised sexist remark.
The problem in this current day and age is how political correctness is malformed and manipulated manipulate by the press through hysteria. If anything this was likely the fall out of another attempted "Gendergate" where trolls activity attack people of significance to show their power over people and domain.
EXCERPT: Back in 2012, a group of clueless protesters tried to disrupt a trial of genetically-modified wheat, [...] The trial was the work of the excellent Rothamsted Research labs, one of the institutions responsible for Britain punching way above its weight in science.
The wheat was modified by inserting genetic material [...] This worked in the lab, so the decision was made to see if it worked in the field. This enraged the anti-GM medievalists so much that a bunch of them emerged in what turned out to be a rather desultory protest. They threatened to destroy the crop, but didn’t.
[...] But look what has happened now. The trial failed! [...] The Greens are crowing, of course. Liz O'Neill, director of GM Freeze, a group which believes in magic not reason, said [...] “The waste of over £1m of public funding on a trial confirms the simple fact that when GM tries to outwit nature, nature adapts in response.” Greens 1, Science nil.
[...] GM products [...] such as the Vitamin-A rich Golden Rice [...] could be saving the lives (and sight) [...] in the Third World. [...] The reason it is not is because of well-funded campaigns by anti-GM activists across Asia, who would rather see poor children unnecessarily blinded than have evil ‘Frankenfoods’ let loose on the world’s farms.
Science is not magic. It is better than that. It is the reason we live in the world we do, rather than the world of a thousand years ago which was a horrid place. Science succeeds because it sometimes fails. But sadly a great number of people are still too dim to realise that....
EXCERPT: Back in 2012, a group of clueless protesters tried to disrupt a trial of genetically-modified wheat, [...] The trial was the work of the excellent Rothamsted Research labs, one of the institutions responsible for Britain punching way above its weight in science.
The wheat was modified by inserting genetic material [...] This worked in the lab, so the decision was made to see if it worked in the field. This enraged the anti-GM medievalists so much that a bunch of them emerged in what turned out to be a rather desultory protest. They threatened to destroy the crop, but didn’t.
[...] But look what has happened now. The trial failed! [...] The Greens are crowing, of course. Liz O'Neill, director of GM Freeze, a group which believes in magic not reason, said [...] “The waste of over £1m of public funding on a trial confirms the simple fact that when GM tries to outwit nature, nature adapts in response.” Greens 1, Science nil.
[...] GM products [...] such as the Vitamin-A rich Golden Rice [...] could be saving the lives (and sight) [...] in the Third World. [...] The reason it is not is because of well-funded campaigns by anti-GM activists across Asia, who would rather see poor children unnecessarily blinded than have evil ‘Frankenfoods’ let loose on the world’s farms.
Science is not magic. It is better than that. It is the reason we live in the world we do, rather than the world of a thousand years ago which was a horrid place. Science succeeds because it sometimes fails. But sadly a great number of people are still too dim to realise that....
The problem with GM wasn't necessarily the Environmental impact or the problems it could cause to Flora and Fauna, but what it could actually do to Farming in general. GM is "Patented" version of systemically altered seeds, which means the product itself requires licensing by the company that doctors it. In essence GM was just about putting yet another fee on food production and tightening the noose around standard farming operations.
(One such case was US based where a farmer was sued by a GM firm for using their patented seed, it in turn was suggested that his field had been cross contaminated by a neighbouring field from a farmer that was using GM. So they were basically sueing him for their own crop contamination.) Further more was the concern that such patent restrictions could be used to block food reaching parts of the world under Trade embargo's, making already starving populations suffer further.
Jun 25, 2015 05:11 AM
![[Image: f70bfb9ccfc6c5e646947998d8d87de8.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/0b/fb/f70bfb9ccfc6c5e646947998d8d87de8.jpg)
