A long time ago, as a related outreach to promote children aspiring to work in science, the Oregon Graduate Institute made sports-like trading cards of their scientists, to distribute to area children.
This project in London might emphasize diversity more, which is great. Not just "Being a scientist is interesting, and conceivably something I could do" (and incidentally it features a diversity of people) -- but more directly going for the reaction of "Someone who looks like me can be a scientist". We still need that.
We also still need to follow through on supporting that, once the kids manage to arrive at college, grad school, and the job market.
The exhibition before that was lots of pictures from the moon landing, which was great.
They also had a series for pride. It was sponsored by skittles, but sadly not only was the logo in greyscale, but they didn't have the the slogan "taste the rainbow". Its london, You've gotta go all in with humour, or it just looks like pride washing....
The Skittles logo is always greyscale when they sponsor Pride events. I have no idea whether it's pride-washing, but it has more thought put into it than most.
"These people are really important! Which is why they get paid next to nothing and toil in such obscurity that we have to photograph them in poster size just to let you know they actually exist."
But what's the value of "inspiring" people to take up a career by lying to them about what it entails?
At best, they end up wasting years of their lives before switching careers. At worst, you get what we did to cops, by making them believe that police work is all about shooting the "bad guys", so now it is.
The new Fallout show has a funny dystopian take on what a society controlled by scientists would look like. It's obviously exaggerated for comedic effect, but I absolutely wouldn't want us to move the needle even a bit closer to that.
There’s no lie, if you want to be in the field as a scientist that is an option just not a well paying one. We don’t focus on how much time programmers spend in meetings, because that’s not what defines the job.
Also, talking sci-fi as a meaningful reflection on how things would work is kind of silly. It’s not some academic projection of likely outcomes just whatever random nonsense makes for a good story/game.
I really dislike holding up scientists as a type of person to aspire to. Science is just a tool, and is frequently used to damage the interest of the public good. I would rather venerate those who are veritably kind to their friends and community.
Science is not just a tool; it’s a way of understanding reality — something that for some of us is fundamentally important and requires no justification.
And even if it is just a tool, it’s an unbelievably useful one. As far as I know there is no more effective way to build things, change things, study things, etc. than the scientific method.
And there’s no science without scientists. Not everyone should aspire to be one, but we should probably all be thankful they exist.
Do you know any scientists? I always ask this in any discussion about scientists, so I'm not just pointing at you.
I'd be satisfied with just portraying scientists as normal working people, who might be your neighbors, and have mostly the same concerns about humanity as everybody else.
White doesn't mean anything in Europe. It's very much an American concept that's only valid there. If you subdivide the "white" population in London by their culture, you'll see what I mean.
Of course, if you measure diversity by the color of people's skin, then that's different. Otherwise, London might be the most diverse city on Earth, sharing the number one spot with New York.
Americans struggle deeply with their axiom of whiteness.
Whiteness in America comes from the unification of caucasians from broad cultural and economic backgrounds against the black slaves that were being raped, tortured and dehumanized systematically over generations. And instead of rectifying the problem by dismantling the concept of whiteness (because it reenforces the power of racial division & hierarchy), it gets promoted as truth and vilified in the name of equality. From an outside perspective, even as close as Canada, this appears regressive.
As for the choice to highlight black and brown people in this project that others in the GP are complaining about.. maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that? I have to say if you get upset about minorities being over-represented you need to find a better use of your limited time on Earth.
> maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that?
Or maybe they're not, and this is a representative sample? Academics move around a lot: seemingly half the faculty at my local university are immigrants, and a good chunk of the graduates become emigrants.
You might be right, but I get unreasonably annoyed when people insist that the existence of women or members of minority groups must be a diversity initiative. The mere existence of people is not a political statement.
> As for the choice to highlight black and brown people in this project that others in the GP are complaining about.. maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that?
This is not the real problem here. Black scientists are perfectly okay.
My point is a city of world class diversity doesn't have an obvious simple majority from a single category. My point is not "white people are there" or "London is extremely uniform".
Bringing this back around to the original topic, none in the photos from the article are from the simple majority category. N is small, so that's not necessarily astounding, but the n=50 photo set also follows a similar pattern.
I don't disagree with it, I think it's more than fine to highlight that the modern split is very different than the typical historical split , but it is there and London is perhaps more bland than the photos suggest.
and each person featured has a link through to a multi paragraph minibiography that's more than enough to find their linkedin profiles, universities, education, etc .. at least for the random three I looked at.
> As for the choice to highlight black and brown people in this project that others in the GP are complaining about.. maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that?
This is not the real problem here. Black scientists are perfectly okay.
The problem is lying to children about the scientific career, specially if those children are in a minority.
Let me explain a thing; in 99% of the cases, when somebody says "we need to inspire children to became scientists", they are not saying what we could think.
What they are selling is not "science", is "science courses". And both things are profoundly different.
... In general, Universities have all the incentives to sell as much science courses as possible without destroying the demand and market value. As we are swimming in problems in search of talent this is not necessarily bad.
But "selling science courses" is profoundly different than "selling a career in science". As most of this children will discover too late, there is not a career waiting at the end of the road. The grant money is in a vault, and the politicians keep the keys.
(disclaimer, this is Europe centric and may not apply to US. Your mileage may vary)
Lets talk about politicians. For politicians the best outcome possible in the game, is to keep as much as possible of that money for themselves, unless is useful to promote their own careers somehow.
They will use every single trick in the book to say "we invested lotta money in science" so they are justified to took it from the vault, but then use the money on other things. Allocating the same money to three different ministries is a good way to round the budget books.
How they do it?,
1) Putting arbitrary obstacles so scientists will never reach the money.
Some common tricks include:
* 1.1 Arbitrary narrow intervals of time where people can apply to the job. In the past I received a lot of job offers after the application interval was closed for example.
* 1.2 Feast and famine. Releasing no new offers in months, or years, followed by a flood of offers at the same time in arbitrary periods where applying to more than one job is specifically forbidden.
* 1.3 Peekaboo. Lack of a common billboard where all the jobs are advertised.
* 1.4 Job offer shaped like a puzzle piece. That is the worse offence and would require a more extensive explanation. This includes lots of constrains. Like the typical constrains by age for example (The same constrains that are specifically forbidden in the constitution). Is impossible to hire a specialist with a complicated pool of unrelated requisites that must be fulfilled previously, unless they are finely knit around an previously known candidate, and they know it.
* 1.5 Bureaucracy overload to apply.
etc...
2) Spreading and repeating as much as possible the idea that science "is vocational and funny"
So scientists should accept the idea that they are privileged to be "volunteering" or "making a better world" or doing "citizen science". Other names for: 'You work for free while I eat the lobster with the money that I would need to "spent" in paying you otherwise'.
53 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 79.7 ms ] threadThis project in London might emphasize diversity more, which is great. Not just "Being a scientist is interesting, and conceivably something I could do" (and incidentally it features a diversity of people) -- but more directly going for the reaction of "Someone who looks like me can be a scientist". We still need that.
We also still need to follow through on supporting that, once the kids manage to arrive at college, grad school, and the job market.
They also had a series for pride. It was sponsored by skittles, but sadly not only was the logo in greyscale, but they didn't have the the slogan "taste the rainbow". Its london, You've gotta go all in with humour, or it just looks like pride washing....
And even if they were surely we can do more than one thing at a time.
Yep, that's all nurture.
At best, they end up wasting years of their lives before switching careers. At worst, you get what we did to cops, by making them believe that police work is all about shooting the "bad guys", so now it is.
The new Fallout show has a funny dystopian take on what a society controlled by scientists would look like. It's obviously exaggerated for comedic effect, but I absolutely wouldn't want us to move the needle even a bit closer to that.
Also, talking sci-fi as a meaningful reflection on how things would work is kind of silly. It’s not some academic projection of likely outcomes just whatever random nonsense makes for a good story/game.
And even if it is just a tool, it’s an unbelievably useful one. As far as I know there is no more effective way to build things, change things, study things, etc. than the scientific method.
And there’s no science without scientists. Not everyone should aspire to be one, but we should probably all be thankful they exist.
I'd be satisfied with just portraying scientists as normal working people, who might be your neighbors, and have mostly the same concerns about humanity as everybody else.
Disclosure: Industrial physicist.
Of course, if you measure diversity by the color of people's skin, then that's different. Otherwise, London might be the most diverse city on Earth, sharing the number one spot with New York.
Whiteness in America comes from the unification of caucasians from broad cultural and economic backgrounds against the black slaves that were being raped, tortured and dehumanized systematically over generations. And instead of rectifying the problem by dismantling the concept of whiteness (because it reenforces the power of racial division & hierarchy), it gets promoted as truth and vilified in the name of equality. From an outside perspective, even as close as Canada, this appears regressive.
As for the choice to highlight black and brown people in this project that others in the GP are complaining about.. maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that? I have to say if you get upset about minorities being over-represented you need to find a better use of your limited time on Earth.
Or maybe they're not, and this is a representative sample? Academics move around a lot: seemingly half the faculty at my local university are immigrants, and a good chunk of the graduates become emigrants.
You might be right, but I get unreasonably annoyed when people insist that the existence of women or members of minority groups must be a diversity initiative. The mere existence of people is not a political statement.
This is not the real problem here. Black scientists are perfectly okay.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-popula...
And diversity means more than just white people.
Bringing this back around to the original topic, none in the photos from the article are from the simple majority category. N is small, so that's not necessarily astounding, but the n=50 photo set also follows a similar pattern.
I don't disagree with it, I think it's more than fine to highlight that the modern split is very different than the typical historical split , but it is there and London is perhaps more bland than the photos suggest.
Here is a way to promote diversity which is a positive thing for business that doesn't involve quotas or preferences.
And even though the actual list contains plenty of white males that clearly isn't enough:
https://www.nature.com/immersive/where-i-work-exhibition/ind...
Or is women you've got a problem with?
> As for the choice to highlight black and brown people in this project that others in the GP are complaining about.. maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that?
This is not the real problem here. Black scientists are perfectly okay.
The problem is lying to children about the scientific career, specially if those children are in a minority.
Let me explain a thing; in 99% of the cases, when somebody says "we need to inspire children to became scientists", they are not saying what we could think.
What they are selling is not "science", is "science courses". And both things are profoundly different.
But "selling science courses" is profoundly different than "selling a career in science". As most of this children will discover too late, there is not a career waiting at the end of the road. The grant money is in a vault, and the politicians keep the keys.
Lets talk about politicians. For politicians the best outcome possible in the game, is to keep as much as possible of that money for themselves, unless is useful to promote their own careers somehow.
They will use every single trick in the book to say "we invested lotta money in science" so they are justified to took it from the vault, but then use the money on other things. Allocating the same money to three different ministries is a good way to round the budget books.
How they do it?,
1) Putting arbitrary obstacles so scientists will never reach the money.
Some common tricks include:
* 1.1 Arbitrary narrow intervals of time where people can apply to the job. In the past I received a lot of job offers after the application interval was closed for example.
* 1.2 Feast and famine. Releasing no new offers in months, or years, followed by a flood of offers at the same time in arbitrary periods where applying to more than one job is specifically forbidden.
* 1.3 Peekaboo. Lack of a common billboard where all the jobs are advertised.
* 1.4 Job offer shaped like a puzzle piece. That is the worse offence and would require a more extensive explanation. This includes lots of constrains. Like the typical constrains by age for example (The same constrains that are specifically forbidden in the constitution). Is impossible to hire a specialist with a complicated pool of unrelated requisites that must be fulfilled previously, unless they are finely knit around an previously known candidate, and they know it.
* 1.5 Bureaucracy overload to apply.
etc...
2) Spreading and repeating as much as possible the idea that science "is vocational and funny"
So scientists should accept the idea that they are privileged to be "volunteering" or "making a better world" or doing "citizen science". Other names for: 'You work for free while I eat the lobster with the money that I would need to "spent" in paying you otherwise'.