Physics prof fired from oil spill cleanup job due to controversial blog. | Hacker News Reader

Physics prof fired from oil spill cleanup job due to controversial blog.

latimes.com

20 pointsyummyfajitas32 comments

It's unclear to me why the professor's opinions on homosexuality or multiculturalism would impede his ability to find a solution to our current predicament in the gulf, which requires a rapid and expert insight.

If his other four colleagues selected by the Obama administration were unable to work with him, that would be one thing. There doesn't seem to be any public indication of that. This mostly seems to be a bow from the administration to pressure to enforce political correctness.

It would be a shame if the professor's absence unnecessarily prolonged or impeded a rapid solution to the gulf oil geyser. The longer that geyser is allowed to spill, the greater the devastation to marine life and the gulf economy.

Look at his publications:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/publist.html

He does not seem to have particular expertise on this problem.

That's a relief. Hopefully his removal will not undermine a solution to the oil geyser.

Nevertheless, he was not removed because of his lack of area knowledge. (One wonders why he was selected in the first place, if his work wasn't relevant.) It appears that he was removed because he was holding the 'wrong' socio-political opinions. And that's unsettling.

He entered the project based on aptitude and left based on politics. That's why it's unsettling.

Here's a good summary of the team Steven Chu, himself a Nobelist, appointed:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/mission_im...

Note that Katz is called the "What am I doing here" person. And note, the above summary piece was posted in advance of those writings coming out.

I think the real issue is, why did Chu ask Katz to join the team in the first place? He's really not got the same track record as the others on the team. Not even close.

Actually, they all seem to be "what am I doing here" people. Three are nuclear engineers of varying sorts, one does superconductivity (also military stuff, including nuclear weapons), one does nanotechnology. Only George Cooper seems to have any remotely relevant expertise; he studies drilling into rocks.

The main difference between the Katz and the rest is that Katz admitted he has no expertise. He's a very smart guy, but he sure doesn't know how to play politics.

This is not a fair summary of the facts.

One person you describe as a nuclear engineer also did this: "In 1991, Garwin convened a symposium of experts to discus ways to stem oil flows from Kuwait wells, set on fire by Iraq during the Gulf War."

One other person you describe as a nuclear engineer was also head of Sandia for 5 years. You will end up with a broad knowledge of engineering techniques in a wide-ranging position like that; robotic handling techniques for nuclear material are something DOE labs know a lot about.

Another person is a robotics engineer; again, highly relevant here.

Oil fires != underwater oil spills. It's a totally different problem.

As for being the head of Sandia and picking up general engineering skills, I don't disagree they are all smart people with generally applicable skills in the physical sciences. That doesn't mean they are underwater oil spill experts.

Also, Katz is an expert in fluid flows. That's just as relevant as robotics.

Sometimes it's good to pick people who are experts in related fields but with no direct knowledge of the issue -- it's a source of unbiased ideas that can be valuable. My impression is that that's the whole idea behind this JASON team, to bring together people from various fields of science who all bring their particular viewpoint to a problem. It's the whole idea behind the word "interdisciplinary"...

<blockquote> In the days when Sussman was a novice Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6. "What are you doing?", asked Minsky. "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe." "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky. "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play." Minsky shut his eyes. "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher. "So the room will be empty." At that moment, Sussman was enlightened. </blockquote>

My point: not to confuse "no preconceptions" with "not much directly usable knowledge." Look at the resumes of the people on the team. You've got the head of one of the premier research institutions in the nation (Sandia), a national medal of science winner who has consulted about the Kuwait oil well disaster, a robotics engineer, and a petroleum engineer. And an astrophysicist.

About Feynman, remember, he was a Nobelist and widely understood, when he was appointed, to be the most brilliant physicist of the latter half of the 20th century. His university (Caltech) runs a NASA facility, JPL, where his sister and a lot of his colleagues worked.

Exactly.

Why was Feynman on the Roger's commission? QED has little to do with rocket science.

The simplest explanation is that Katz was picked because he has a high aptitude for physics problem-solving. Why was he picked over someone else with a better resume? I don't know.

If you could prove otherwise, then we could steer this discussion in another direction.

If you're looking for a balanced outside view, and find that outside view less balanced than initially claimed...

While not relevant to this particular problem, "Detection of Neutron Sources in Cargo Containers" is an interesting title...

It's unfortunate his social views became a "distraction"--whatever that means. I am disappointed. He should not have been dismissed due to social pressure. He's not running for a political office.

He's a smart man who's trying to solve a very important, urgent science problem. His involvement should only be tied to his problem-solving abilities.

We need to band together--irrespective of barriers and beliefs--like in the movie Independence Day--where all the countries united to defeat the alien invaders :)

... should NOT have been cut ... I think you meant to say. Correct ?

fixed wording

Let's be clear about what he said in his blog that's so inflammatory.

Essentially, he said that gay people are morally culpable for AIDS, and that the monogamous gay people are culpable because they belong to the same group much how people belonging to the KKK are to blame even if they aren't the exact person committing violence.

He really didn't say that. He compared homosexuals to people who ride motorcycles without a helmet, not the KKK. He also criticized the homosexuals and IV drug users who spread disease.

What this has to do with his ability to mitigate an oil spill is beyond me.

"Post-Script October 9, 2005: In recent weeks this essay has been the subject of controversy at, and even beyond, Washington University (see, for example, recent issues of Student Life). A number of critics have asked if monogamous homosexuals are also culpable. Quite apart from the question of the definition of monogamous (sexual contact with only one person in a lifetime? serial monogamy? some cheating? etc.), I suggest the following analogy: A man joins the Ku Klux Klan. He is not violent, and would never hurt a fly; he just wants a safe place to express his racist feelings. Is he culpable for the Klan's past acts of violence? I believe that even though he is not criminally responsible for acts that occurred before he joined, he is morally culpable for joining the Klan. The Klan has blood on its hands, and anyone who joins must share the guilt. So, too, with the homosexual movement."

My mistake.

It's disappointing at a time like this that when all Americans need to come together and focus on relief efforts and recovery efforts in the Gulf, someone in power decides a person's divisive position on an issue affects his ability to focus on a problem.

If it affects other people's ability to work with him, it matters.

Maybe it effects his ability to work with them, and they should be removed.

I don't like homophobia, though I do agree with him on diversity (based on what the article showed): that we should focus on people's merits, and not their race, for college admissions and jobs.

However, it's my understanding that he only wrote this stuff on his blog; that he wasn't preaching about it at work, or in this scientist group.

If some scientist is too effected by the personal writings of this guy on his blog that they are unable to work with him, then that scientist should leave the group. Moreover, for someone to be removed from a government position based on his personal beliefs, expressed on his personal web site, is very clearly a violation of freedom of speech.

To put it another way, suppose someone on the team believed that women should have the right to vote, and this offended the sensibilities of other members of the group. Should that person have been removed?

Just because his ideas are wrong, doesn't make them any of our business, or the government's, or that groups'.

jeez, I have probably worked with a lot of people who have divisive controversial views diametrically opposed to my own.

who cares!

The immature, overly political people on the team, that's who!

I don't agree, though, that this is a violation of his free speech rights. He can still speak. Its more a violation of his employment agreement, if anything at all.

I have to disagree with "I don't agree, though, that this is a violation of his free speech rights. He can still speak."

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have vocal cords. It means you are free from reprisal for your speech. This was a government appointment, and the story says that the DOE confirmed that the reason for his removal was because of his writings. So, the DOE punished him, by removing him from this appointment, based on his writings.

Freedom of speech doesn't typically imply no fear of reprisals from employers; why should it in this case?

In essence, it comes down to government use of power. Private companies may discriminate based on beliefs, because the positions they offer are not created by use of force, whereas all government positions are.

Put in a concrete, extreme example, consider if all teaching positions across the US required a statement of belief (say, in god). This would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause (really, tied to freedom of speech, but you could make another example that is more closely linked to the current situation). However, if some private catholic school required its teachers to believe in god, that would not be a violation, because the constitution binds the government, not private individuals or groups.

So, in a clear answer to your question, "why should it in this case?", it should because the constitution is a set of rules for the government to act upon, not for private companies.

A set of rules for the government to act on in exercising powers peculiar to government, no?

Hence the historical importance of tenure for judges, for example. I assume his university position is likewise protected by academic tenure?

So I respectfully disagree. Whatever this is, it isn't a freedom of speech issue.

I agree. You're not guaranteed no repercussions for your speech, only your ability to exercise it. You've got the right to express yourself and others have the right to respond. And as long as they aren't violating any contract with, that's perfectly ok.

Sounds like people on this team are too busy googling each other instead of shit like "can super glue gum up our oil well?"

I don't see why it would. I go to work and I talk about stupid stuff with my coworkers all the time. They definitely don't have much in common with me, and it's an even larger gap between me and the founders. Even so, I manage to do my job and hopefully do it well, regardless of what they thought of my peach/orange/pink hair last week.

There just happens to be this little thing called professionalism....

wow, lots of homophobe-apologists masquerading as free speech crusaders here tonight.

it doesn't take a genius to realize that:

a) having a lightning-rod homophobe/bigot on the team will turn into a PR nightmare and result in a media circus

b) it'd be better to not have such a circus and focus on the important stuff

c) removing the bigot puts this problem behind you so you can focus on the task at hand

furthermore, $50 says this guy is a self-hating closet homo. wait for it....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com