The article wasn't entirely positive on her, either, not that anyone seems to feel they need to read the articles they're opining on on HN.
Does putting a diaper on a bonobo and taking it to a restaurant sound like scientific research?
Sue hasn’t been connected with the initiative for many years and for years after her leaving harassed the workers and organization such as by constantly calling the police and reporting false animal abuse. It took the author until nearly the end to begin mentioning similar items. The article in general is a rehashing of previous articles on Sue and the bonobos. There is nothing new or significant in the article worth mentioning. No new research.
You can take these as anecdotes. My opinion doesn’t matter in the grand scheme and take everything with a grain of salt, but the scientific community should have higher standards.
Science isn't an aesthetic choice, so whether or not something "sounds like" science, is completely irrelevant.
Science is asking questions, and trying to gather observations which answer the question.
If your critique is that what she's doing doesn't sound like science, that just sounds like you don't know what science is. I'd have to know what question was being asked to know whether bringing a bonobo in a diaper to a restaurant is really a good way to gather observations on that question.
> Sue hasn’t been connected with the initiative for many years and for years after her leaving harassed the workers and organization such as by constantly calling the police and reporting false animal abuse. It took the author until nearly the end to begin mentioning similar items. There is nothing new or significant in the article worth mentioning. No new research.
Just because it's not new, doesn't mean it's not significant.
So far, your "personal knowledge" just sounds like a grudge which you would benefit from working through. I'm not saying you have to like her or pretend that everything she did was right and good, but you also don't have to go on the internet and try to tear down the good parts of her legacy.
You don't need to persuade me she was a destructive and slightly crazy person--that's in the article--and its clear that her presence had become harmful to progress. But her earlier research does look pretty interesting, and it would be a shame to not look at her earlier research because she became hostile later. Sometimes assholes discover interesting things.
What exactly is unscientific about this?