Shamed Nobel laureate Tim Hunt ‘ruined by rush to judgment after stupid remarks’

[hinduwoman]

I am astonished that 8 pages of discussion has not bothered to focus on facts:

1. Tim Hunt was asked by media to give his side of the story in spite of his whining now. Only he explained that he meant exactly what he said about women being distractions and emotionally unstable.

"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls," he said. "It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field."I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.
"I'm really, really sorry I caused any offence, that's awful. I certainly didn't mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually."

2. What is all this indignation about him being fired and his career deep-sixed? Sorry, he gets to keep his shiny nobel prize, and whatever money he has earned before or pension though he might not be invited to speak anymore in science conferences. UCL is not actually losing anything by his resignation/termination because again contrary to impression he actually does not WORK -- as in teaching or research there.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0615/100615-tim-hunt

UCL can confirm that Sir Tim Hunt FRS has today resigned from his position as Honorary Professor with the UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, following comments he made about women in science at the World Conference of Science Journalists on 9 June.

The title of UCL Honorary Professor is reserved for individuals who are closely linked to one of UCL’s academic departments (or Institutes) and who are from a non-UCL academic/research institution. The appointee should be of an academic standing equivalent to that of Professor at UCL. It does not carry a salary, and does not ordinarily involve teaching or research at UCL, with activities undertaken in consultation with the relevant Department
...
Sir Tim held an honorary position at UCL. He was not, and never has been, employed by UCL at any stage of his career and did not receive a salary from UCL.

So Hunt is not living in a hovel destitute because his livelihood has been cruelly snatched away by FemiNazis. And also therefore the questioning of sacking him from a voluntary nonprofit post does not arise. It was not a job in actual sense of the term. And no the university would not be suffering from loss of future scientific discoveries.

Same thing with his resginations from other posts. They were honorary ones and his resignation was accepted because his comments in a public setting to a room full of women scientists were simply out of line.
https://royalsociety.org/news/2015/06/sir-tim-hunt-resigns-from-royal-society-awards-committee/

Sir Tim Hunt has made exceptional contributions to science in terms of his own research on the cell cycle and its implications for our understanding of cancer which led to the award of the Nobel Prize. Over the years he has also supported the careers of many young researchers, often travelling tirelessly to support young people all over the world. It is the great respect that he has earned for his work that has made his recent comments so disappointing, comments he now recognises were unacceptable.

Just because he is a Nobel winner and his wife loyally stands by her man does not mean he gets a pass --

We should also note that Hunt’s claims get no special protection from scrutiny on the basis of his age, his supportive wife, his status as a Nobel Laureate, or his desire to continue his association with UCL. The norm of universalism means that these particular fact about Hunt don’t matter in the conversation, only the factual content of his claims does

His positions in these places were for PR purposes. Since he managed to bring disrepute to himself it is only natural they don't want to stand by him; one can even say that he failed in his job of communication science and so was rightly pressured to resign.

 

[Metaphor]

I know I've lost this nitpicking point to the tidal wave of popular mass media, but I will go to my grave before I describe an occupation with the word 'woman' in front of it.

There are male scientists, and female scientists. There are no 'woman' scientists. There are no women prime ministers, no women presidents, no women nothing.

 

[Draconis]

There are no women prime ministers, no women presidents

Saying "woman prime minister/president" almost makes it sound as if there are separate leaders for each sex.

 

[Metaphor]

There are no women prime ministers, no women presidents

Saying "woman prime minister/president" almost makes it sound as if there are separate leaders for each sex.

It makes my blood run cold. 'Woman' is a noun, world.

'WOMAN' IS A NOUN.

 

[Bomb#20]

I know I've lost this nitpicking point to the tidal wave of popular mass media, but I will go to my grave before I describe an occupation with the word 'woman' in front of it.

There are male scientists, and female scientists. There are no 'woman' scientists. There are no women prime ministers, no women presidents, no women nothing.

Hey, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" was science, right? That should make Alfred Kinsey count as a woman scientist.

Saying "woman prime minister/president" almost makes it sound as if there are separate leaders for each sex.

It makes my blood run cold. 'Woman' is a noun, world.

'WOMAN' IS A NOUN.

This is English. Any word can be verbed. If you can man up, I don't see why you can't woman up.

 

[arkirk]

Supposing this Hunt fellow actually has the sensitivities he claimed to have in his Korea remarks. Would that not be a personal matter not having a hell of a lot to do with science? He was not advocating female circumcision, slavery, demotion, or anything else. The meaning of what he said was simply confined to him and not worthy of firing or opprobrium of any kind. It was a confession perhaps of a sensitivity but not of some kind of pernicious attitude that should get a person fired even from a voluntary no pay position.

As for twitter...this thing is a joke with length limitations that mean nobody gets anything very right.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It was a confession perhaps of a sensitivity but not of some kind of pernicious attitude that should get a person fired even from a voluntary no pay position.

The comment in isolation is not pernicious, but it stems from [once?] pervasive diminutions of female scientists. As a matter of opinion, one man's honorary position is very small compared to that. This is not a statement on whether or not he should have lost that honorary position (had he not resigner), but rather a statement of scale.

 

[Metaphor]

Hey, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" was science, right? That should make Alfred Kinsey count as a woman scientist.

But what about lady doctors? Female doctors, or an ob/gyn of either sex?

This is English. Any word can be verbed. If you can man up, I don't see why you can't woman up.

I'll verb nouns with the best of them. But I won't adjectivise nouns. That's beyond the pale.

 

[Toni]

I am astonished that 8 pages of discussion has not bothered to focus on facts:

1. Tim Hunt was asked by media to give his side of the story in spite of his whining now.

Pity that the university did not ask him about the incident but went through his wife.

2. What is all this indignation about him being fired and his career deep-sixed? Sorry, he gets to keep his shiny nobel prize, and whatever money he has earned before or pension though he might not be invited to speak anymore in science conferences. UCL is not actually losing anything by his resignation/termination because again contrary to impression he actually does not WORK -- as in teaching or research there.

His position was honorary and not paid. That is not the same thing as not working. In fact, it seems his work was quite valued there, including by other female scientists who have come forward in support of Hunt.

UCL can confirm that Sir Tim Hunt FRS has today resigned from his position as Honorary Professor with the UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, following comments he made about women in science at the World Conference of Science Journalists on 9 June.

The title of UCL Honorary Professor is reserved for individuals who are closely linked to one of UCL’s academic departments (or Institutes) and who are from a non-UCL academic/research institution. The appointee should be of an academic standing equivalent to that of Professor at UCL. It does not carry a salary, and does not ordinarily involve teaching or research at UCL, with activities undertaken in consultation with the relevant Department
...
Sir Tim held an honorary position at UCL. He was not, and never has been, employed by UCL at any stage of his career and did not receive a salary from UCL.

See? You knew that.

So Hunt is not living in a hovel destitute because his livelihood has been cruelly snatched away by FemiNazis. And also therefore the questioning of sacking him from a voluntary nonprofit post does not arise. It was not a job in actual sense of the term. And no the university would not be suffering from loss of future scientific discoveries.

Same thing with his resginations from other posts. They were honorary ones and his resignation was accepted because his comments in a public setting to a room full of women scientists were simply out of line.

Becoming destitute is not the only consequence of losing one's position and was not the concern that Hunt himself expressed. Whether the university will suffer from loss of prestige, funding or mentoring services because Hunt is no longer there is something that will be determined.

https://royalsociety.org/news/2015/06/sir-tim-hunt-resigns-from-royal-society-awards-committee/

Sir Tim Hunt has made exceptional contributions to science in terms of his own research on the cell cycle and its implications for our understanding of cancer which led to the award of the Nobel Prize. Over the years he has also supported the careers of many young researchers, often travelling tirelessly to support young people all over the world. It is the great respect that he has earned for his work that has made his recent comments so disappointing, comments he now recognises were unacceptable.

Just because he is a Nobel winner and his wife loyally stands by her man does not mean he gets a pass --

I have not heard anyone make such a suggestion. What I and others have said is that his remarks were quite mild and the reaction to them seems to be rather out of proportion to what was said. That makes me and some others question if something else was going on. It could be that he has a long established history of making sexist or otherwise offensive remarks or behaving in ways that detract from the excellent scientific work he's done (see Nobel Prize) as well as his long history of mentoring other scientists, including female scientists (see many quotes from women who have spoken in support of Hunt.)

We should also note that Hunt’s claims get no special protection from scrutiny on the basis of his age, his supportive wife, his status as a Nobel Laureate, or his desire to continue his association with UCL. The norm of universalism means that these particular fact about Hunt don’t matter in the conversation, only the factual content of his claims does

His positions in these places were for PR purposes. Since he managed to bring disrepute to himself it is only natural they don't want to stand by him; one can even say that he failed in his job of communication science and so was rightly pressured to resign.

I wonder how many of us are perfect at all times in thought, word and deed? I suspect absolutely not one person on the planet would ever live up to such standards of perfection.

Given the mildness of the remarks reported, it makes me scratch my head a bit. But not as much as the fact that other notable scientists are not forced out of their positions despite some pretty questionable behavior. One most notable example would be Dr. James Watson, who has a long and well documented history of bigotry and frankly, some pretty questionable standards when it comes to academic honesty (See Rosalind Franklin) and who left his post voluntarily at age 79. Or for a recent example, what about Dr.Matt Taylor, who is still employed?

 

[Bomb#20]

But what about lady doctors? Female doctors, or an ob/gyn of either sex?

You say that like there's a distinction. What's an ob/gyn, but a specialist in the lady parts of females?

 

[barbos]

I am astonished that 8 pages of discussion has not bothered to focus on facts....

There is another fact - reaction of all these women is ironic illustration to what that poor guy have stupidly said out loud.
And good luck getting another male Nobel Laureate to talk on women in science issues

 

[thebeave]

I am astonished that 8 pages of discussion has not bothered to focus on facts....

There is another fact - reaction of all these women is ironic illustration to what that poor guy have stupidly said out loud.
And good luck getting another male Nobel Laureate to talk on women in science issues

Yep. Even if you mis-speak about a women's issues, you're in for a rough ride. Remember when Mitt Romney said he had "binders full of women" when he meant he had "binders full of women's resumes"? Feminists lost their minds on that one.

 

[barbos]

There is another fact - reaction of all these women is ironic illustration to what that poor guy have stupidly said out loud.
And good luck getting another male Nobel Laureate to talk on women in science issues

Yep. Even if you mis-speak about a women's issues, you're in for a rough ride. Remember when Mitt Romney said he had "binders full of women" when he meant he had "binders full of women's resumes"? Feminists lost their minds on that one.

That poor guy must have lost elections because of that

 

[Metaphor]

But what about lady doctors? Female doctors, or an ob/gyn of either sex?

You say that like there's a distinction. What's an ob/gyn, but a specialist in the lady parts of females?

You've misunderstood. Is a lady doctor an ob/gyn, or any doctor who happens to be a woman?

 

[Bomb#20]

You say that like there's a distinction. What's an ob/gyn, but a specialist in the lady parts of females?

You've misunderstood. Is a lady doctor an ob/gyn, or any doctor who happens to be a woman?

Dang, apparently I needed to put a smiley on that one. Is "lady parts" or using "female" as a noun the worse grammarian bait?

 

[hinduwoman]

Toni,

According to the university they did try to ask him about this position;

UCL sought on more than one occasion to make contact with Sir Tim to discuss the situation, but his resignation was received before direct contact was established.

Are we sure that the university official did not tell his wife to contact them immediately and he will have to explain why he said these things and if it is not satisfactory enough he university will take steps against him?

Reaction was so much because women scentists had to put up with such jokes and way of thinking all the time; the last thing they expected was that someone invited to a scientist convention specifically encouraged to have more women in science would tell them that they cry and labs should be gender segregated implying they are not as good as male scientists. Hunt is not required to be perfect at all times, but he should have remembered where and when he was speaking.

James Watson was forced to retire as Chancellor of Cold Spring Laboratory after one comment too many. Matt Taylor unequivocally apologised on TV, though he also burst into tears.

 

[hinduwoman]

I am astonished that 8 pages of discussion has not bothered to focus on facts....

There is another fact - reaction of all these women is ironic illustration to what that poor guy have stupidly said out loud.
And good luck getting another male Nobel Laureate to talk on women in science issues

Actually reaction of women scientists proved the opposite: just look up the hashtag distractingly sexy. It is Hunt who is weeping on social media because he cannot take criticism thus contradicting his own statement.
I am sure there are other male nobel laureate scientists who have managed to outgrow the fifties.

 

[barbos]

There is another fact - reaction of all these women is ironic illustration to what that poor guy have stupidly said out loud.
And good luck getting another male Nobel Laureate to talk on women in science issues

Actually reaction of women scientists proved the opposite: just look up the hashtag distractingly sexy.

That's not a proper reaction. Proper reaction is no reaction.

It is Hunt who is weeping on social media because he cannot take criticism thus contradicting his own statement.

I don't follow social media, so I don't know, but it all started with women using that thing to shun the guy.

I am sure there are other male nobel laureate scientists who have managed to outgrow the fifties.

Yeah, and women can't outgrow twenties.

 

[purple_kathryn]

There is another fact - reaction of all these women is ironic illustration to what that poor guy have stupidly said out loud.
And good luck getting another male Nobel Laureate to talk on women in science issues

Actually reaction of women scientists proved the opposite: just look up the hashtag distractingly sexy. It is Hunt who is weeping on social media because he cannot take criticism thus contradicting his own statement.
I am sure there are other male nobel laureate scientists who have managed to outgrow the fifties.

The distractinglysexy hashtag was pretty funny

 

[RavenSky]

We first need to separate the individual women who mocked Hunt with the hashtag “#distractinglysexy” from the institutions that fired him. Most of the social media response was, itself, pretty jocular. While plenty of people said that Hunt distilled the working environment in science, and the reason women can’t thrive in it, it didn’t follow that those people were calling for him to be sacked.

The institutions have reacted in an unintelligent way: they think they’ll be on the right side of the PR curve if they cave in to a public response, not realising that the response itself had many layers and a rich history. Nobody would react to Hunt or any other man, making this or any other remark, were he not symbolic of a larger problem, with profound and demonstrable effects. To think you have addressed that problem by erasing the symbol is a hasty, ironically rather emotional, response. Hunt thinks he has been “hung out to dry”, his side of the story never solicited; in fact, his side is pretty lame. What was really lacking here was rational thought – what was the anger really about, and will the decapitation of Hunt’s career make any difference?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/14/sexism-misogyny-alex-salmond-tim-hunt