Hello geneticists, someone from the other side here. (And co-signatory to BuzzFeed essay.) A question. Reich was given a platform by NYT for a piece that had no other purpose than to advertise his book. Presumably, he could have taken any amount of time he wanted to write it. 1/n
-
-
Replying to @monicaMedHist @mbeisen and
Monica H Green Retweeted John Hawks
As
@johnhawks has noted, that *created* a news cycle: https://twitter.com/johnhawks/status/980468860016087040 …. The response that appeared in BuzzFeed was rejected by the NYT and had to be "shopped" elsewhere. Most of the signatories work on race & its real-world consequences. (See: the news any given day.) 2/nMonica H Green added,
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @monicaMedHist @mbeisen and
Criticism of evidence & argument is always called for. That's what we do as academics. But can we also acknowledge that there are real-world consequences for this sloppy conflation of "race" & "population", as you yourselves have acknowledged? What will be done about these? 3/end
1 reply 5 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @monicaMedHist @johnhawks and
I completely agree. Reich was shockingly sloppy in his language, and he too made scientific errors. His piece merits pushback on technical terms and, more importantly, because of the consequences of his sloppiness.
4 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @mbeisen @monicaMedHist and
I tried to be clear that in criticizing the response I was in no way trying to defend everything Reich said.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @mbeisen @monicaMedHist and
I was (and still am) frustrated that a piece that was correctly trying to point out the dangers of Reich's cavalier attitude about race when writing about genetics was in turn cavalier about genetics when writing about race.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @mbeisen @johnhawks and
"Frustration" is widely shared, I assure you. But let's be clear about the context, timing, & stakes of this "debate." Reich *was given* a platform by NYT: his choice of context, timing. (Indeed, he was given a 2nd platform again this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/opinion/race-genetics.html ….) Given .. 1/n
4 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @monicaMedHist @mbeisen and
.. the international platform, a pointed, urgent & public response was called for. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see 67 geneticists publish a coordinated response less than a week after having to shop it to alternative venues. If that's in the works, I look forward to it. 2/2
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @monicaMedHist @mbeisen and
While you are engaging genetics as a co-author of the buzzfeed piece could you please explain what this paragraph means?pic.twitter.com/LMf7hYhcpj
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @pastramimachine @mbeisen and
Hi
@pastramimachine. Sorry, not going to take this bait. I don't speak for all the co-signatories. If you want to have a reasoned discussion of "race" & genetics, then put together a conference & arrange formal publication with referreeing that reflects disciplinary expertise.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Do you mean that you signed on to a statement whose scientific claims you are not qualified to comment on? Or that you added your name to a statement you knew to be libelous drivel?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.