When you questioned Dani as to the source of bias in Open Science. If you know about implicit bias, this should be obvious
-
-
It's like saying you want feminists to be less sexist. Open science needs to be more open to URMs by definition.
-
Otherwise how is open science open?
-
The blue clothes certainly don't cause sexism, but if the movement fosters sexism... That's a non starter to openness!
-
Don't we want to hold ourselves, our movement, to a higher standard of all kinds of openness?
-
Sure, but I don't have any more desire to hold *open science* to a high standard than society itself. I care about non-scientists as much.
-
If you don't hold open science to a higher standard of openness you risk losing is.

-
Why would you risk making open science less open to us?
-
What's the point of building a new system just as closed with respect to URMs as the old one?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That's an position on the scope of the movement"; fine. I was surprised at the implication that
@CandiceMorey was excusing any behaviour. -
Yeah, you have to try and see it from our perspective, which I think you are. We have been literally through so many cyclic conversations
-
with mainly men demanding from us reasons why URMs/we deserve a place in open science... It's exhausting having to defend our right to a
-
voice within what we think of as our movement too.
-
It's almost like a lot of these people think open science means just putting your data and code online.

-
But open means, or at least could mean, so so so much more. Science is for everybody.
-
I'm so glad so many people agree even in relative silence (via likes and RTs etc) on this issue.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.
