Regarding the myth of “anti-male discrimination”
.
.
At a time when the US Supreme Court, stacked by Trump and now entirely out of step with the majority of the American people, is acting to undo decades of progressive legislation regarding reproductive rights, racial discrimination, and affirmative action, it is important to keep watch on the accuracy and, well, appropriateness of media reporting.
Here I’m reacting to a news article in Science (scienceinsider) on an incident during the recent Lindau Nobel meeting. Kurt Wuethrich, a co-panelist of the Agora session dedicated to the future of structural biology, caused a stir by alleging “anti-male discrimination” at the meeting. His opinion, which I don’t believe is shared by many male scientists, was challenged and set straight in the Q&A by a courageous woman student at the end.
But how is it that a single opinion, out of step with reality and unrepresentative of the vast majority, is amplified and dignified by coverage in an article in Science?
Below is a commentary I’m trying to launch in Science. In the picture accompanying the article, nobody is identified by name, and I’m seen talking into the microphone, so a superficial reading might come to the conclusion that the controversial remarks came from me. This is why I decided to explicitly distance myself from Wuethrich’s stance, and to post the following comment:
As one of the panelists of the session, who is featured in the photograph accompanying the scienceinsider article by Amanda Heidt, I feel compelled to comment on this event. In his remarks – misplaced in a session whose focus was on the future of structural biology — Kurt Wuethrich did not speak for the members of the panel, nor for the Nobel laureates assembled in Lindau. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe his opinion is shared by many of our colleagues. I want to point out that in the interview given by Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard which he cited, she merely warned about “anti-male discrimination” as a possible result of overreach in the measures dealing with the undisputable discrimination against female scientists, not as a statement about fact. Furthermore, while this particular session was meant to focus on structural biology, there were several other sessions at the Lindau meeting devoted to the issues of diversity, equality and opportunity in science. As an international gathering of scientists, I think the Lindau meetings are an ideal place to discuss matters not only of science but also science policy, with gender discrimination (and other issues of diversity) as a prominent topic. Countess Bettina Bernadotte and the organizers of the meeting should be commended on such a choice of focus for the 72nd gathering.
Joachim Frank
.
.
This entry was posted in Blog and tagged discrimination, diversity, Kurt Wuetrich, Nobel laureates, self-determination law, women, women leadership in science. Bookmark the permalink.
Dear Joachim Frank,
Do you know the quote by Elie Wiesel:
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.”?
I saw several times the video of this particular discussion.
As a matter of fact, you stayed silent regarding Kurt Wuethrich’s controversial statement. You had the chance to call out Kurt Wuethrich yourself, but you did not do it during the whole session.
Wolfgang Lubitz asked the panel round if you want to comment. In that moment you could have raised your voice, but you decided not to do it. Why?
You had the same chance as the young female scientist to call Wuethrich out, but she had more courage than you.
Now, you are also aware that Wuethrich took the quote about “male discrimination” out of its context.
In my opinion it is vital that female and binary scientists in STEM get more support.
Why? The ratio at Lindau shows exactly the problem. Too few women have received in the past the Nobel Prize. As the woman said: Female scientist face systematic, structural discrimination during their career.
I don’t see how your statement is any good now. As a member of the panel you had in that very moment more power and you decided not to use it to help others.
Btw, you call the female scientist “woman student”. Are you sure she is “only” a student?
Yours sincerely,
Dora W
Dear Dora,
All very good points you are making, but note I have a problem with hearing. I heard Wuetrich’s remarks only in a muffled way, and did not get what he was asserting. Nor was I aware of the contents of the article he waved around, and only later (after talking to friends who were present) understood that he was asserting anti-male discrimination. I did the next best thing, if you grant me that, which is posting this statement on the internet, and attempting to post it in the comment section of Science (which appears to take a while). Mey message to you is I’m with you, and if it were not for the problems with my hearing, I would have asserted my strong opinion right away.
–Joachim
I noticed you have a problem with criticism. Of course my statement was not published. I just let you know the community is aware of it.
unsure what this comment is about. see my reply to 7/04 which I just saw. jf