[For those who need some background, I recommend Debbie Kennett's comprehensive post.]
It is important to keep in mind that all of Tim Hunt's "controversial" remarks (even back in 2014) were elicited and improvised. He had been asked to say a few words or to answer a journalist's questions. And he did so with honesty and candour. The "coverage" of his remarks by Connie St Louis and Deborah Blum (and, somewhat further in the background, Ivan Oransky), by contrast, was calculated and deliberate. While Sir Tim's remarks might, arguably, have revealed an unconscious bias in his thinking about women in science (although he was of course demonstrating precisely his awareness of that bias in his remarks), St. Louis and Blum's so-called "reporting" exhibits what is almost certainly a conscious strategy. This is quite openly an example of agenda-driven journalism. St. Louis and Blum were not trying to help us interpret the world, as Karl Marx might have said; they were trying to change it.
It is important to keep in mind that all of Tim Hunt's "controversial" remarks (even back in 2014) were elicited and improvised. He had been asked to say a few words or to answer a journalist's questions. And he did so with honesty and candour. The "coverage" of his remarks by Connie St Louis and Deborah Blum (and, somewhat further in the background, Ivan Oransky), by contrast, was calculated and deliberate. While Sir Tim's remarks might, arguably, have revealed an unconscious bias in his thinking about women in science (although he was of course demonstrating precisely his awareness of that bias in his remarks), St. Louis and Blum's so-called "reporting" exhibits what is almost certainly a conscious strategy. This is quite openly an example of agenda-driven journalism. St. Louis and Blum were not trying to help us interpret the world, as Karl Marx might have said; they were trying to change it.
It is also important to keep in mind that St Louis and Blum are highly respected members of the "science writing" profession. Blum and Oransky, as I pointed out yesterday, served in the program committee of the World Conference of Science Journalists, and St Louis sits on the boards of both the World Federation of Science Journalists (which hosted the conference) and the Association of British Science Writers. When St Louis was facing criticism for irregularities in her CV, the latter articulated a strong statement of support. The statement described the criticism as "attempts to discredit her professionally, simply for pursuing a story that she thought correctly was interesting and important." It goes on to characterize her intervention as "the everyday act of reporting a news story" and stood by her "as an organisation of science writers which fosters excellence in journalism". That is to say, the ABSW is telling us that St Louis's reportage is exemplary of the professional standards of the field of science writing. I'm still waiting to hear from the WFSJ but I expect that they, too, will allow us to judge the field of science journalism by the actions of Oransky, Blum and St Louis. This post is a first attempt at figuring out what that profession is all about, or, as the working title of St Louis's PhD apparently has it, "What is a science journalist for?"
To that end, let us look at a plenary presentation Connie St Louis made in 2012 at the Tarrytown Meetings in New York, "unashamedly" donning the "hat" of a journalist, a profession for which she "lives and breathes".
It is tempting to let it speak for itself. But I think we ought to do more than just balk at this embarrassing performance. Unlike St Louis, whose tweet characterized Sir Tim's remarks as "Victorian", and attributed to him the absurd view that laboratories ought, seriously, to be sex segregated, without so much as a few seconds of audio recording to support the interpretation, I will at least let you see the video for yourself before I propose to characterise her view of the relationship between science and journalism as profoundly cynical. Notice that she begins* by invoking the "incredible" power of the media vis-a-vis advocacy groups and policy makers. She encourages her audience (of academics and, I think, practitioners interested in biotechnological issues) to "use [the media] as your tool". And she's quite direct about what sort of leverage the media has. "The politicians," she says, "are really scared of the media" and that fear can be used to "shift attitudes" and "influence policy". This gleeful cultivation of a climate of fear in the relationship between journalists, scientists and policymakers is rather disturbing, especially in light of recent events.
In any case, she follows this up with a very simple-minded, and to my mind irresponsible, set of tips for how academics might succeed with the media. After paying some unconvincing lip-service to making sure your research is solidly grounded in fact ("We [i.e., journalists] love figures," she says) she proceeds to explain how and why to strip all public presentation of such research of nuance and complexity. "If it bleeds it leads," she tells us, "and follow the money". The first point seems to be sort of a throwaway, but I guess, prefiguring the Tim Hunt case, she's saying "If it's not bleeding, make it bleed." As for the second, I'm all for doing a bit of digging into how research is funded, of course, but is it really true that the media are mainly interested in the financial side of research?
In any case, she moves swiftly along to disabuse her audience of the quaint notion that anyone might ever really understand the complex ideas they are trying to express. Right on cue, she quotes the utterly debasing principle of populist communication and popular music: "Keep It Simple, Stupid." But Connie, "for goodness sake", what about the "nuances and complications"? "They ... don't ... care," she helpfully explains. "They do care about a simple message." Let's keep in mind that "they" are the "media", i.e., they are her. When asked about nuances and complexities, her answer is: "I don't care!" Yes, yes, she throws in as an afterthought, the message has to be "backed by figures and accuracy, and all those kinds of things" but the important thing is to keep it simple and stupid. That's certainly a standard to which she performed in the Tim Hunt debacle.
We're not yet four minutes into the video, but I'll leave it there. The rest is devoted to examples and applications and heroic tales of her own journalistic exploits. It is very instructive to pair her self-presentation with, say, Sir Tim's cheerfully frank account of "How to Win a Nobel Prize." After spending just ten minutes in the presence of each of these intellects, we get a pretty good sense of how the now infamous [mis]understanding about Sir Tim's "trouble with girls" arose, I think. Scientists, take note. These writers are bad news. Be careful out there.
[A NOTE ON COMMENTS: I don't really have a comment policy because my blog isn't that popular. But it looks like this topic is a attracting a broader readership, let us say, than I normally enjoy. I am going to delete comments that amount only to one-line invectives. It's not just about civility, but also about style and making a reasonable effort. Anyway: there's no rule except that if I think it's in poor taste it gets deleted, at least temporarily. I hope we can work with that.]
__________
*I'm not sure, but there seems to be an edit around the 25 second mark, so it's not clear where in her overall presentation the bulk of the video comes from.
24 comments:
With regard to the quality of her writing, this original version of her Guardian article 'Stop defending Tim Hunt' is remarkable for its illiteracy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150623163921/http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/23/stop-defending-tim-hunt-brian-cox-richard-dawkins
"As the Tim Hunt storm continues unabated. I find myself pondering the decision to break the story from the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea about Sir Tim Hunt’s remarks were, as I’ve said, culturally insensitive and sexist... "
(Sorry, I'm going to insist on a modicum of civility in the comments. If you're not expressing anything other than distaste, please keep it to yourself.)
I was expecting some detail on how his comments were "elicited". What was the question? I haven't really been following this story, so pardon my ignorance, but a link would be helpful.
He had been asked to say a few words at a luncheon, a sort of toast. I may add a few links, but this really just part of the conversation. I'll put a link to Debbie's comprehensive background post at the top.
Ive dealt with journalists. They seem to have a story they want to tell, and the interview is about eliciting information from you that furnishes that story. This seems to be towards the worse end of the journalism spectrum, but is more common now. I think it is the approach she is propounding here. She seems to have an agenda for social change, in some direction, and seems to see journalism as a tool in that. Poor Craig, I imagine he was thinking "what misconduct - I'm not aware of any misconduct" but couldn't say that in case there was some in his vast organisation he wasn't aware of. That really is a form of entrapment. Im really feeling, off the back of the whole Tim Hunt thing, that false and malicious allegations need more consequences in law.
Thankfully, the story how now moved away from Tim Hunt, and has become about the story itself - and about how stories are made. Its not pretty. If thats hand happened, largely thanks to LH, The Times and others, the poor man would have had his whole legacy poisoned by this.
Scientists seem unequipped for a journalism fight. The methods are totally at odds: empirical search for the truth vs. "gotchas."
Yes, this is why UCL's behaviour is so shameful. (Post on that coming up soon.) It is the institutional function of a university to protect people who are earnestly trying to figure out how the world works from people who are more interested in imposing a prefabricated understanding of those workings on what they believe is a gullible public (for whom things should be kept "simple, stupid"). UCL should have rejected the demands of the mob.
Unfortunately, St Louis is right that the politicians fear the journalists. Unfortunately, university administrators are often "politicians". If St Louis and Blum get their way, the protective walls of academe will come down, and scientists themselves will live in fear of the irrational mob that wants to believe what ideologues tell them to believe not what careful experiments show. The only "garden" that will remain is the literal one of those fortunate scientists who can afford one.
Again (and worry not, I won't butt in here again on that topic) you don't know what UCL's behaviour is or whether it was shameful. We simply lack the information of what went on behind the scenes. Perhaps this lack of transparency in itself is bad but it's hardly worse what generally happens. It may well be in Hunt's interest that it isn't more public. Either way, we simply don't know what happened. Given that the UCL Council was clearly not entirely happy about how this all played out, the fact that after evaluating the actual correspondence and information that we don't have decided unanimously to back the decision makes me think that there is probably more to this story than one-sided media reports and people with an obvious agenda are trying to make us believe.
I don't expect you to agree with me. I don't know the truth but the point is neither does anyone else who keeps talking about this. Unless this information becomes public, I really think people should stop talking as if they knew anything. This is neither journalism nor science.
I'm working on a post specifically on UCL's role. I think by "behaviour" I mean mainly what they demonstrably didn't, finally, do--namely, to actively protect Tim Hunt from the mob. City and ABSW had St Louis's back. UCL did not have Tim Hunt's. To my mind, they failed in their near-sacred positive duty to protect unconventional minds from the pressure of conventional thought.
Your blog post has indeed found a 'larger' audience.
The bad news is your comment section might get a bit messy. The good news is that your post which was 'found' was of a very high quality.
In the YouTube video, at 6:37, Connie describes a website called "Retraction Watch." Irony, thank you for visiting us from the past.
Yes, and at 2:05 she even says, "I was talking to a guy called Tim yesterday." Probably not the same Tim. But funny.
Anonymous (10.55AM) - Retraction Watch is of course run by Ivan Oransky, the man who now contradicts Connie's story ;) . See Debbie Kennett post linked at the top for details.
Anon94 (to avoid the messiness of multiple anonymi)
I think this all started on the first morning of the conference, the 8th. Blum and Hunt had just given speeches. St L's speech wasn't until the 10th. Here she is talking to a packed house. Unfortunately no transcript!
It was a pretty ham-fisted way to get the attention of the world's press.. and maybe derailed the conference, which wasnt about women in science narrowly. The tweet was made in (sort-of) cahoots with Blum, a conference organiser.. I'd be interested to know how other speakers and journalists present responded to the story, if it overwhelmed the event, or not.
It is clear that UCL acted against Hunt for purely political reasons and on the basis of extremely trivial and unsubstantiated evidence. No peer review! If it becomes this easy to disgrace scientists, social activist journalists will no doubt move on to science itself, and take more and more issue with findings that they disapprove of on social/political grounds alone: 'if it bleeds, it leads'. Lysenkoism beckons.
I don't have any evidence for any underlying political motives for UCL's actions. To me it just seems like they panicked and cowered. But you are right that if it's this easy to get rid of someone you don't like, either because their research is disproving yours, or because it is politically "inconvenient", then science is in a bad way. Following one's curiosity about how the world works (and having "fun" as Tim Hunt suggests we should) would then be very dangerous. As Tim Hunt might rightly be thinking at this point, figuring out how cells divide comes to be not really worth the trouble. And I don't mean "the trouble with girls", of course!
When I said 'political', I meant in the entirely general sense of 'not conforming to fashionable shibboleths' (in this case, hypersensitivity to possible 'sexism'), and no more. I would no longer feel it worth the possible trouble, for instance, of doing research on the evolution of an intricate hormonal ongoing interplay between a biological mother and her child in case some activist decided that I was implying a 'difference' between male and female interactions with infants which had unacceptable social consequences.
Okay, I misunderstood you. I apologize. I would add to your concern that in this case the accusation of "sexism" was completely arbitrary. It had nothing to do with Hunt's research. So you wouldn't even be safe if you were trying to discover, say, cold fusion. If you begin to succeed, some rival, who is either professionally invested in its impossibility, or in some alternative approach, might decide to get rid of you by trumping up a charge of misogyny. That's part of my worry.
The other is that we're clearly not going be able to talk about sexism in science (or any other important political question about its organization) if slightly clumsy remarks, which is what Hunt's remarks were at worst, have such dramatic consequences.
It's the responsibility of the journalists to keep the conversation informed and rational.
"criticism for irregularities in her CV" lol
Well that is one interpretation. In most private companies her feet wouldn't have touched the floor for lying on her c.v.and gaining a pecuniary advantage by deceit.
Have standards in academia slipped so far that excuses are made for what is, when all said and done a fraudulent act. What other 'irregularities' has she hidden?
The thin end of a very sticky wedge.
I have just elsewhere commented that Tim Hunt would have been invited to conferences because he was an interesting speaker - and it is the complexity and humanity of his speeches that makes him interesting. It's also how a dull mind can misinterpret what he says. I have listened to a few Tim Hunt speeches recently and enjoyed them all. I cut Connie St Louis' speech short. Were I a conference arranger I wouldn't invite her a second time. Listening to the two makes clear the differences between the two minds - and it's not just a matter of degree. Put it simply: if you got the chance to work or learn with one of them, who would you choose?
In the end it's not the lies and the 'misunderstandings' that matter, it's that some silly idiots gave credence to St Louis & co - and for that it's UCL, City, the BBC, etc at fault.
Scientists should just avoid journalists. Don't invite them. Don't attend where they're invited. Start requiring confidentiality agreements at conferences. Ignore this advice at your own risk.
Have something to say to the public? Start a blog. A blog lets you speak to people directly and on the record. No middle man to hear you say things you never said or reinterpret your words. Scientists write, they don't do public relations.
These days everyone except the clueless scientist understands that a journalist is either a prostitute or out of work. Every journalist wants to reinvent themselves as something more respectable, and nothing inspires respect as science does in our society. Science journalism, data journalism... just sprinkle some magic science dust on it and voila! As a mathematician I pray there is never a math journalism.
I don't think they thought it through well enough. But, yes, that's the signal St Louis sent to scientists: avoid "science writers" like the adder's bite.
Post a Comment