racist and/or sexist — we do not say "this is not a scientist" but we do condemn their bad ideas. Why? Not because we're inherently nice but
-
-
because many of us know that if we do not condemn these ideas then people URMs and non will think this is the norm within sci culture.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Do we say "Oh, X was a white supremacist, you know, therefore X is not a scientist"? NO. We chastise and police their views and behaviours
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
while acknowledging that these people are historically scientists and with the hope that things are better. Because we want inclusivity —
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
otherwise we run the inherent risk of making URMs think science is not a place for their skills.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
2nd, there is no such as "you have to be a nice person" for many reasons including that "nice" is undefined/subjective. But there are
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
standards of behaviour relating to professionalism (you don't go to work in your bikini or your pyjamas (usually!), you don't insult people
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
(usually!) and etct etc) and relating to the ethics of carrying out experiments. If you violate these rules and norms you run the risk of
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
being fired by your uni/PI which runs the risk of you eventually not being a scientist.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Probl is not so easy. In many areas data is close to noise so you are getting away for years till somebody does a funnel plot. Hmm...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I meant more along the lines of if you go to work and tell everybody to fuck off very eloquently ala Malcolm Tucker you prob will get fired.
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.