Diversity in Science

"First rate minds try to surround themselves with first rate minds.  Second rate minds try to surround themselves with third rate minds."  That is a pragmatic point for today's topic.  Whether I'm a first rate mind myself, I enjoy being around them.  And it's obvious that science does best when we have the best people involved.  My actual starting point is the morality that it is wrong to discriminate against people for who they are.

What brings this up, and out of my usual range of posting, is events over the weekend that happened to Danielle Lee, @dnlee5, a biologist and blogger at Scientific American.  Early in the process, she gave an interview and said: “If that many people were going to come out in support of me, I’d rather it be in support of one of the missions that’s going to make me redundant. I am trying to make myself redundant, truth be told. It is a lonely place to constantly be the only one like you in science,” "  One such mission being increasing diversity in science.

Very normal for my posting is the message 'you can do science'.  But that doesn't touch preconceptions people might have about who 'you' can be (quick answer: anyone).  I've heard that the common image of a scientist is a middle-aged white man with bad hair, wearing a lab coat.  Fortunately I'm nothing like that -- I've never worn a lab coat.  I've also heard that it's better to talk about living people than people like George Washington Carver and Marie Curie (still ... go read their biographies).

I'll limit myself even further, just to people that I've met personally.  The fact that I know these people does not mean (I'm looking at the nitwits* who might have snuck in to the room) that there's no discrimination in science any more.  It does underscore the fact that it's unconscionable.  If you don't accept the moral argument, then because of the pragmatic -- these are first rate people you would be refusing to let do good work.  I won't be listing names for all, which is something of a question.  On one hand, taking away someone's name is more than a little depersonalizing and can be offensive in its own right.  On the other, I've heard more than once from people that they don't like to be trotted out to be 'the woman' or the like -- that they just want to go do good science, a privilege accorded the pale males who just want to go do good science. 

• Warren Washington is an African-American man who has won many awards, and been a leader in climate modelling.  He was also the doctoral advisor to Claire Parkinson.
• Claire Parkinson a woman who has been studying sea ice for decades now, and wrote a book (now in second edition) on climate modeling with Warren Washington.  Also wrote a very good book solo on the history of science and math.
• Margaret Davidson   A woman who has been director of both NOAA's Coastal Services Center and its National Ocean Service.  She lead (we met about the time she started so I know it was her idea and plan) the CSC towards and in its approach of working with communities as opposed to issuing edicts.  (NOAA being furloughed, her bio is offline).
• Jamese Sims An African-American woman who did her thesis on modeling hurricane intensity and now works in NOAA/NWS on relating weather information to health and safety.
• A blind PhD cognitive psychologist.  As much as I read, I boggle at someone who takes in entire textbooks by listening.  We played cards once, which I think is hard if you can't see them.  (Braille doesn't cover the fact that you can't 'see' them all at once.)  Much better card player than me, too.
• A gay, disabled, African-American man.  There's an article about straight white male being the lowest difficulty setting for life, by John Scalzi.  This guy has been playing on the grandmaster setting.  And has remained amazingly not-bitter.  I'd last maybe a few weeks in his place.
• James West  an African American man, inventor of the microphone that's used in several billion devices (you probably have several yourself), member of the National Inventor's Hall of Fame.
• Jeanette Epps is an African-American woman, astronaut, inventor, engineer.
• A female Muslim scientist from India -- we talked, well before 9/11, about the concept of jihad and what it meant.  She talked; I asked questions and listened to answers.  She said that the jihad was an internal matter -- the struggle with yourself to live a virtuous life.  I've since heard this from a number of other Muslims.
• A Hispanic male mathematician/oceanographer
• A Hispanic female observational oceanographer
• A Hispanic female numerical hurricane modeller (was also a summer student of mine)
• A transgendered, gay, man -- another for playing life on the grandmaster setting.  Incredibly broadly talented across math/science/engineering/technology _and_ languages. (Human ones as well as computer ones.)

And many more.  This list is biased towards African-Americans and women because it was prompted by an African-American woman's experiences.  It has long been obvious to me that first rate minds come in all packages, from all backgrounds.

Second rate minds try to surround themselves with third rate minds.  They can't cope with people who are as or more talented and hard working than they are.  If they must encounter a first rater, they're the ones fastest to reach for the bigotry encountered by @dnlee5.


* I'd be using stronger language except for this blog's language standards.

Journalists' desires

I've seen several articles one telling scientists what journalists want, and why, and some going in to how.  Most recently http://www.scidev.net/global/communication/practical-guide/what-journalists-want-from-scientists-and-why.html It's all useful advice, and the one time I was allowed to speak to a journalist, I had a very good experience.

But, one thing very lacking in these articles is discussion of what it is that scientists may expect in return, why it is worth the scientist's time, and why it is worth the potential risk to professional standing and employment.

Advice: Journalists are on deadline -- so drop everything you're doing in order to answer their questions.

Q: Ok.  It's obvious why journalists want (us) scientists to drop what we're doing in order to answer their questions.  But what is the journalist promising in return?  Accurate quoting?  Many scientists have experienced the contrary.  Being quoted at all?  Not necessarily, we might not say anything quoteworthy in the journalist's opinion.  Chance to review the article prior to publication for accuracy?  Often refused on grounds of journalistic independence.

Advice: Answer all the journalist's questions, to ensure their understanding.
Q: Makes sense if we're going to talk to a journalist at all that we do what is needed for them to understand what we're saying.  But now it is a matter of not only dropping everything we're doing, but doing so for indefinitely long period.

Advice: Speak their language.  (Not English vs. Swahili so much, but glaciologist vs. ordinary citizen.)
Q: So not only do we drop everything we we're doing, for indefinite period, but even though we were interrupted in the middle of thinking hard about some obscure part of our field, we're to immediately shift mental gears from our frame for professional thinking to speaking to random citizens?  If I'm in the midst of writing a paper or proposal -- where I have to saturate in professional language -- it's going to be a while before I come down to being able to talk understandably to my wife (a bright person, but not a professional in my field so my reference for journalists; my wife understands this, journalists don't seem to.).

Even just in the context of speaking to a journalist, there are some costs and challenges to the scientist.  But let's go a little farther in what is happening for the scientist

Read more »

Where is south?

You, too, can be a space alien!  All you'll need are a stick, some sun, string, and a way of making marks.  At the end of this, you'll be able to perform feats that have caused many over the decades to say that the ancient Egyptians and others 'must' have been visited by space aliens.

What you'll do is construct a very accurate definition for north+south.  From there, you can build your own pyramid aligned accurately to north/south.  Technologies involved are all 6000+ years old.

So, first step is to get a long, straight stick.  You can verify that it's straight by checking against the string in your which way is up apparatus.  (Notice that it, too, only uses 6000+ year old technology.)

Next, put the stick in to an area of flat ground.  It's best if you plant it straight up and down.  You can use your terribly advanced up-down apparatus for guidance on which way is up.

Now for the hard part.  Tie the string around the stick and your marker.  Pull the string taut and mark a circle around your stick.  Retie the string to marker and shorten or lengthen the distance from stick, to make another circle.  Repeat a few times so that you have a variety of circle sizes.

Back to easy.  A little patience is required.  Each time the sun's shadow from your stick hits one of the circles, mark the location.  If you're in a cloudy place, you really want a bunch of circles.  What we're looking for is the shadow to hit the same circle twice -- once earlier in the day and once later.

Next to last: after you have a nice pair of marks on one of your circles, find the mid-point between the pair.

Finally: Draw a straight line from your stick to this mid-point mark.  This line is the north-south line for your location.

There are some elaborations you can do here, for accuracy and for large scale construction.  But you're now done with the basics.  And can construct your own objects aligned accurately to north-south, just like the 'space aliens'.  Well, more seriously, just like our ancestors from several thousand years ago.

Read more »

Which way is up?

Simple questions sometimes have subtle answers.  Of course, some answers are also pretty simple.  Which way is up starts out simple and then gets pretty subtle. (Note on scientist-speak: subtle = complicated and/or difficult).  This winds up being related to What is a day? as we get a little more complex.  But, while we can, let's go with simple.  Up is the opposite of down.  Slightly less simple, down is the direction a ball falls.

Even less simple: hang a weight on a string.  Hold it still.  This is difficult, so maybe hang it from a nail or off a board.  There's probably still a little swinging back and forth.  So either wait (it'll come to a halt eventually, but who says scientists are always patient?!) or get a large (larger than your weight) cup or bucket of water and bring that up underneath the weight.  Make sure the weight is made of something that doesn't float if you use this approach!  Once the weight comes to a halt, the string gives you a line which points up and down.  The weight is the 'down' side of the line.

By the way -- not only do you not have to be good at math to be good at science, you also don't have to be good at drawing. For me, this is pretty good artwork. Some people are great at drawing, same as some are great at math. Some of us, well, you see my caliber of artwork.

 Now for getting subtle ... which also explains why the earth isn't exactly a sphere.

Read more »

Conservative and religious responses to climate change

Yes, there are such responses!

• Kathryn Hayhoe and Tom Ackerman  
• 4 EPA directors under Republican Presidents 
• Republican Secretary of State, George Schultz  
• Bob Inglis, Republican Representative  
• Sherwood Boehlert, Republican Representative, chair of House Science and Technology Committe 2001-2007

Kathryn Hayhoe and Tom Ackerman are both evangelical Christians.  Read their article for why the comedian is wrong to say that they don't exist.  I also happen to know both (not well, but email with Kathryn and Tom in person for a couple years when we were both at Penn State).

Boehlert, I think, said it best for the political side (forget about party) about a decade ago.  As I remember the quote, what he wanted from scientists was "Tell us what's happening, what's liable to happen, and what, if anything, we can do about it."  Actually deciding what to do, that's the job of politicians, such as himself.  As a scientist, I'm comfortable with that.  (Well, give or take my concerns about the political process; but we all have to live with that.)

There are quite a few more religious people and conservative politicians, and fans of free market economics, who also are willing to discuss what -- if anything -- to do in response to climate change.  See also my 2008 post Keep your vehicles how you choose for a couple of my thoughts.

Actually getting to the point of having that discussion publicly is ... different, somehow.  But a question I was asked recently points to a direction.  Q: "Have you talked to any of your neighbors about this?"  A: "Doh"  How to go from meeting a neighbor walking her dog to chatting about climate change ... I'm not sure how to do it non-awkwardly.  Then again, graceful has seldom been a hallmark of mine.  Maybe readers have an idea or two they'll share?

An encounter a while back gives me some hope that on the face to face level there might well be some hope.  I ran in to a former weather forecaster and modeller I've known for many years.  He commented about liking my blog (I didn't know he even knew it existed) even though we (probably) disagree politically.  We probably do disagree about what to do, as far as I've heard of his politics.  But, we could have the discussion about whats and hows and whethers.

My main line here is the science rather than politics of course, but ignoring politics entirely doesn't seem much more sensible than politics ignoring science.