This title is unreadable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence
“3M Execs convinced a Scientist…” ok
“3M Execs convinced a Scientist PFOS Found”… ok, the PFOS found the scientist?
“3M Execs convinced a Scientist PFOS found in Human Blood”… PFOS found a scientist in human blood?
The problem is that there are gramatically valid ways to parse partial versions of the sentence, which you have to reparse as you go through the sentence.
executives from the company 3M
convinced a scientist (presumanly to sign off)
that PFOS (chemicals used for certain non-stick properties in domestic and industrial products)
that seem to leak into human blood when using said products
are safe
you can force a scientists to sign off...
* They kept relevant information from her, including studies they'd done on the subject before
* They sidelined her research efforts and made her feel unwelcome there
* She grew to dread the subject and avoided staying involved with it
* "when friends asked Hansen about PFAS, she would change the subject. Still, she repeatedly told [her husband] — and herself — that the chemicals were safe."
How very scientific.
> But first, she decided to have one last blood sample tested for PFOS: her own. The results showed one of the lowest readings she’d seen in human blood. Immediately, she thought of the rats that had passed the chemical on to their pups.
> Hansen told me that, for the next 19 years, she avoided the subject of fluorochemicals with the same intensity with which she had once pursued it. She focused on raising her kids
She WAS meticulous in her research for YEARS, but ultimately held too much unquestioning trust in the company line that PFOS was safe. She got worn down and burned out... Which is pretty understandable.
At one point TFA quotes her asking her husband to walk her through the car park after work lest she be threatened by other 3M employees who now saw her as some kind of traitor, so at one time she was pretty worried about being victim of a Boeing-Type Incident.
If you want people to remain scientific, you gotta foster a culture in which it is safe to do so, and the impact of the findings matches its significance.
You can also help convince by giving false assurances or falsified statistics and results for their investigation.
Apparently the theory is that the word "How" in titles is always meaningless clickbait so HN automatically removes it. I don't believe this actually improves things.
Sort of like people misusing the phrase "Ponzi scheme" to refer to basically any kind of unsustainable and ethically-dubious thing whatsoever.
Better?