How a Shrimp Treadmill Became a Political Plaything | Hacker News Reader

How a Shrimp Treadmill Became a Political Plaything

chronicle.com

296 pointsbenbreen124 comments

I highly recommend folks watch Particle Fever (for a variety of reasons, and it's on Netflix), but one section particularly stuck out, when the documentary addresses the original LHC location in Texas being de-funded. It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority.

I think it's easy to make a very public argument against budgeting research, as the general public doesn't necessarily understand the larger implications of these experiments (at a cursory glance, I rarely see it myself, but I generally give research the benefit of the doubt). Particle Fever addresses this point blank with the discovery of Radio Waves, how nobody really knew what this discovery meant until years/decades later when it became a massive step forward in communication.

My dad is a bit old fashioned, and if you told him in a soundbite that congress was spending money on shrimp treadmills, with no other context he'd immediately make his snap judgement that the government is once again wasting his money. Hard thing to overcome, no matter how important the research might end up being.

When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech.

Where are the think tanks?

Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists?

( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] )

We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2]

Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests.

What is it then?

Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3]

I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.

Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other.

[1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobb...

[2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-...

[3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...

> Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3]

> [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review

Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be “rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s.

I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met are bullish on technology.

It pays to actually explore the links, provided.

  There are some people who prefer the original's gritty
  Chandleresque voice-over narration and the ambiguous happy 
  ending (both supposedly forced on Scott), but the Final
  Cut is a more disturbing tale of dehumanisation.

I did read that. I still have no idea what you’re getting at. Could you please “explain it like I’m five”?

I have to agree with the sibling comment here, I still have no idea what you're getting at with the Blade Runner stuff or how it ties into the rest of your point.

You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

If you are truly clueless of how those images translate to the "Normals" [2] whose only introduction to anything remotely scientific is a staple diet of Ancient Aliens [3] and similar pseudoscience shows on History Channel, then you could really use a road trip through the flyover states of America.

Strike that. Just venture into Tracy or Morgan Hill or Walnut Creek, if you live in the Bay Area.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

[2] http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/31/the-only-normal-people-are-...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens

> You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

The point that you are making will always seem clear as day to you because you are the one that believes it. The onus is on you to make sure that the rest of the world can understand it if you want to effectively communicate with others. If you have multiple people saying that they don't understand you, throwing up your hands in the air and saying, "Y'all must be trollin'" isn't very useful.

That said, we don't need to delve into fictional cyberpunk dystopias to find examples of "science run amok," so I'm not really understanding how getting movie critics to write editorials criticizing movies that show us bleak futures is all that useful, or necessary.

I understand his point to be that in California, the tech industry is very influential whereas in places predominantly Republican and shunning of science/tech like this area of Texas, the people don't seem interested at all in promoting science/tech as the way of the future and maybe even embrase the bleak and dystopian frontier that may lie ahead.

Again, this is what I assume he means and I could be way off so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

As someone who works in the film industry, Hollywood makes movies that reflects the public's hopes and fears. It doesn't do dystopia for its own sake, any more than it does mindless techno-optimism. Picking out the re-release of Blade Runner as an example of what Hollywood churns out 'like clockwork' seems self-contradictory to say the least.

On the larger question of why we don't have a lobby to fund basic research, I don't know - perhaps because nobody wants to expend political capital on research that might not be patentable or commercially exploitable, plus you could argue that private capital is already performing effectively in that area. I think it's absurd to pin the blame on Hollywood and think it's more to do with the limitations of our geographically representative form of government, which makes alternative electoral structures like party lists impossible. Probably the best hope for blue-sky scientific research is a new cold war, sadly :-(

For someone who "works" in the film industry, you seem to be gleefully unaware of Hollywood's fondness for dystopia.

Interstellar might be one of the few newer breed of films that actually casts human space travel in some positive light.

In fact one is left wanting for instances of the "techno-optimism" - mindless or otherwise - that you describe of, in Hollywood flicks.

List of dystopian films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_films

A simple Google search

http://i.imgur.com/hHvy0rN.png

Hollywood is fond of conflict because that's where drama comes from, as observed by Aristotle a couple of millenia ago. Nobody is interested in a story where the protagonist doesn't have any problems, which is why there's a genral shortage of utopian literature in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utopian_literature

A good number of the films listed by Wikipedia as dystopian technology is working out just fine for most people while disenfranchising a few - much as in our own world. Insofar as dystopianism is aesthetically fashionable it's largely reflective of contemporary economic or political anxieties rather than being predicated on technology. Total recall (both versions) are listed as dystopian, for example, but those films are quite neutral on the impact of technology - the dystopian element is that of economic coercion resulting from a natural monopoly (oxygen on Mars in the original; the labor supply chain in the remake).

I could dig into examples at length and compare them with positive and negative views of the future from earlier eras of film, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort given your needlessly snide tone.

You might have missed the part where the sole premise of Interstellar was that they were leaving Earth to explore other planets because of how bad Earth had become. I.e. a dystopian future.

>I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.

Interstellar, I'm hoping, re-inspires some of us to dream about science once again.

Regarding [2]: the incumbent in CA-17 is a popular liberal Democrat, who like most liberal Democrats supports funding for science and technology. He had as much support from the tech industry as a whole as his primary opponent, who was funded in great measure by extremely wealthy Silicon Valley executives and investors. Said opponent ran a campaign to the right of the incumbent, littered with gibberish like "disruptive" and "Government 2.0".

I don't identify with the "we" that tried to elect that guy. To me, it looks like a handful of tech billionaires trying and failing to buy a seat in Congress. If they really want to support science and technology, there's a lot of districts in the R+5 range where diligence and money could help elect centrist technocrats (with any letter after their name) rather than yet another good ol' boy.

I understood your BR reference but I'd counter that the dystopian future films are what the public likes even if they aren't what they initially want as the box office receipts show they lap these films up.

The problem with why you're getting so many comments about your BR reference is you made it way too obscure and it even comes off as a little hipster-ish. Also, (the rest of this response is in reference to your replies to said comments) perhaps instead of trying to land the flaming plane, you should have just bailed out instead.

>one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech.

Not really. People who are interested in actually contributing to the world by scientific research and technological innovation have zero interest in a field that is overwhelmingly useless and idiotic: Politics.

>"People who are interested in actually contributing to the world by scientific research and technological innovation have zero interest in a field that is overwhelmingly useless and idiotic: Politics."

You say politics as a field is deemed useless by those people, and yet the funding for them to pursue the thing they are interested in is directly affected by said "useless field".

This is actually a very fascinating part of my childhood. I was in middle school in Midlothian, TX during the time the "super collider" was being build in Waxahatchee. I was a kid, i was fascinated about this. The schools took it upon themselves to start teaching physics to 6th graders. The whole town knew it was a big deal. Then one day, it wasn't.

I'd moved away, and heard it was turned into place to grow mushrooms. I never understood when i was young, why they wouldn't want to build something so important. To be honest, i still don't really understand why we didn't build it aside from simply "Republicans." I'll check out the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

The SSC was killed in the 103rd Congress by a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate and a Democratic president.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h526 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2445/text

The project was originally championed by Republicans (and Democrats from Texas.)

"Reagan Calls Super Collider 'Doorway to New World'" March 31, 1988|Associated Press

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-31/news/mn-896_1_super-c...

George Bush: Remarks at the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory in Waxahachie, Texas July 30, 1992

"Now, the super collider. The super collider is one of the greatest scientific projects in the entire world. This place attracts scientific genius the way our U.S. basketball players attract autograph seekers over there in Barcelona. So for me it is an incredible honor to be among you and to hear of your dreams and accomplishments."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21280

But I wouldn't want actual facts to cloud your worldview. You want to know why it was cancelled? Try Google.

This clashes with my worldview and prejudices, so I refuse to accept any of your facts.

Never let facts get in the way of your beliefs...

Again, it's not as straightforward as that. It was started under Reagan and never adequately funded which is why it was behind budget and schedule in 1993. Cato and other conservative think tanks came out strongly against it in the early 1990's as well[1] which is why Bush dramatically cut funding in his budget in 1992.[2] When it came down to the final vote in the Senate to kill the program, 53% of Democrats voted to keep it (29/45) and 70% of Republicans vote to kill it (31/44).[3] The Republicans then went on to a massive sweep in 1994 based largely on promises to dramatically decrease government spending, where they highlighted projects like the SSC as wasteful.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Steven Weinberg has a good piece about the failure of US politicians to support 'big science': http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/crisis-...

[1] - http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-016.html

[2] - http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0630/30013.html

[3] - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

Has the LHC ever produced any benefit to humanity? Serious question.

Yes, humans now have a better understanding on how the fundamental building blocks of the universe work. Has this directly affected your quality of life, no. Do you derive enjoyment from knowing that your fellow man now has a better understanding of the inner workings of every atom that make up the mass around you? I do. Could it possibly benefit you in the future, that is unknown.

Not yet, but similar fundamental scientific research has led to the inventions of extremely beneficial technologies like TV, GPS, CAT scans and nuclear energy.

All of these technologies based directly on fundamental research came years or decades after the discoveries. Science is often a game of patience.

It's probably going to take some time for knowledge of this kind of seep into our day to day lives, but for a lark:

It's confirming evidence of the Standard Model. It's kind of like checking for your chair for a thumb tack, when you work in an office of pranksters -- if there isn't a thumb tack, was there any benefit to checking? Maybe, but you probably wouldn't say that if there was. If the standard model fell, there would be implications that we could probably engineer around up to and including utilizing nonlinear aspects of particle interactions to build computers with. But alas, it confirmed the model.

Also the standard model has implications on the nature of dark matter and dark energy, which in turn have implications on the likelihood that we get clobbered by a random piece of space rock. Of course even if we did know this to a better degree...it's unclear whether that's a benefit or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this comment however that knowing our degree of mortality is a benefit, but ymmv.

In general, the more tangible benefits of lhc are probably going to come from stuff related to anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo..., and nanoengineering efforts yet to come.

I'm not sure which come directly from the LHC, and which predate it (but probably still benefit from the research) but a lot of medical techniques rely on particle interactions and acceleration which benefit from the research such as PET-scans, and particle-therapy.

There is also research being performed at cern into new superconductors and new ways of coating various materials with thin layers.(as a direct resut of building the LHC).

First off, let's start with Benjamin Franklin's "What good is a newborn baby?" quote, when asked what good electricity could ever do. Primary research leads to unknown and unknowable benefits, because it is impossible to know what will come of it.

As an example, let's consider the magnetic moment of the proton. It's a rather esoteric measurement. The proton acts as a tiny magnet, and some researchers wanted to know exactly how strong of a magnet. So, they set up a strong magnetic field and looked to see how the proton behaved. They ended up finding two different values.

As it turned out, those two different values were the result of electrons getting in the way of the measurement. As it turned out, there were two different chemical environments in the molecule being studied, and that caused the two different values. The chemists loved it, because then they could directly measure the electron density.

Then the doctors realized that the chemists had an awesome tool. They could use it to measure the concentration of water inside a patient's body. Bam, MRI.

All this from esoteric primary research.

You could ask that of any basic scientific discovery in the history of humanity, with the answer of "eventually".

When the government needs to make cuts, science, education, and technology R&D should be the last to go.

Solyndra is another great example of how they demonized a R&D program designed to encourage energy independence. Instead of losing the planned $10 billion, the program has turned a profit for the government.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-...

Particle Fever is damn good. It hit me right in the feels when Peter Higgs is shown crying.

That darn machine is so complex.

> It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority.

If that sentence ended with "for government", then I agree with those members of congress.

If that sentence ended with "for humanity", then I disagree. It's time to accept that in the modern internet connected world people can pool their abilities and resources with others anywhere on the planet for common goals all without the government.

Great documentary, I really enjoyed it.

You'll notice that the member of congress mentions that Europe will build it anyway, so why waste US taxpayer money?

Europe did indeed build the LHC, and whatever value there is in discovering the origins of the universe is now enjoyed by the entire world. So what exactly was wrong with his argument?

Add it to the list along with the million dollar space pen[0]. Oversimplifying things like that seems to be pretty common in politics. When you say something like "the government spent millions of dollars on a shrimp treadmill!!", the desired reaction is achieved well before any well-reasoned rebuttal can be made. And by the time that the truth comes out -- if it ever does -- it's too late to correct the audience's idea that the government is wasting money.

[0]: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes"

Very few people will see this truth.

I've pretty much stopped talking, with actual words through actual speech, politics with people around me. What usually happens is "damn, did you hear about the stupid shrimp treadmill." Right as I go to inhale[0], whomever said the first sentence will inevitably cut me off with "yeah, yeah, I'm sure it's not that bad and there is some reasonable explanation that I'm not gonna get, but shit, man, shrimp treadmills, what the fuck?!"

0 - I freely admit that I can also be a little overenthusiastic about political matters, mostly because I'm really starting to dislike the sigh-and-keep-quiet approach.

Wouldn't it work to discredit enough of these stories coming from the same sources - that way, after a certain period, claims coming from the source can be discarded by default, and only assumed true if they can be verified via some other means. Ad hominem, basically.

It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes. The sentiment against science in large tracts of the country is frankly scary. When you see that the Department of Biology at Baylor University, a respectable institution associated with the Baptist Church, feels compelled to make a statement in favour of evolution (http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368) you know it's time to emigrate.

> It's of course that politicians are only speaking what the electorate wants to hear. Anti-science language wouldn't fly if it didn't result in votes

It's not anti-science language, per se. It's a "hey, look at this wasteful stuff your tax dollars are getting spent on," which only incidentally plays on anti-intellectual/anti-scientific sentiments in the electorate. It's hard to explain why something like this is actually a valuable use of resources, and doubly so when it's easy to characterize as a ridiculous thing.

I've heard same thing happened in Europe to a research of mechanism of flea jumping.

Which, as you can imagine, is very important in both tackling flea-borne infections in animals and, potentially, in jumping mechanisms.

The truth is, further a person is removed from productive activity, more fierce they become towards "wasting on needless research" or whatever. Politicians are a good example

Reminds me of the research into French fruit flies that Palin tried to make the same political point with - http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2008/10/french-fruit-fly-f...

I wonder if they just find it icky and are then rationalizing the politics afterwards.

Palin shares her hatred of Fruit Fly research with Stalinist Soviet Russia[0]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

And her hatred about France (at the time) too.

What about three times as much on a video game nobody's heard of?

http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spent-10-million-on-a-vide...

Does it lead to kids changing their dietary habits? I would have to guess not. If it did, would it be justifiable? The effectiveness of the product should be discussed first then the cost effectiveness of the product can be considered. There is no point of waving and screaming look at all of this money being spent on this thing, unless you also examine the thing which the money is being spent on.

I saw discussion about this on reddit. The top comment noted that kids sit on the couch (and do not need move) while playing this video game - so it's not clear how this video game helps.

I guess it's a very bad idea that also was poorly planned and managed.

Before. Ask this question I must issue a disclaimer: We waste more money giving religious groups all kinds of priviledges (tax exemptions for TV evangelists!!!) than university researchers will ever waste. Every dollar invested in science is a dollar well spent.

That said, scientists are not beyond wasting resources. I think it is absolutely proper and important to hold scientific research accountable to the degree it is possible.

I am not making a comment about the shrimp treadmill, this is more of a general observation.

> Mike Huckabee linked the National Science Foundation’s funding of shrimp-treadmill studies to limited military spending

How the fuck did he manage that? How many hours would $300m last the military?

According to Wikipedia, US military spending is about $643 billion. So, $300m would last about 4 hours.

Those shrimp really are stealing a lot from the military. </sarcasm>

What I don't understand is that this sort of thing happens between other sectors - for example, 'defense dollars could be used to provide healthcare', or 'subsidies could be used to pay teachers more and improve schools'.

In these cases, the sectors each have their own lobby, and they are able to fight back with publicity and ads.

But scientists are defenseless. Where is the pro-scientist lobby? Should universities just get together and throw some dollars at hiring a lobbying firm?

EDIT: the scientist lobby could release an ad that said this: "politicians are spending millions on armament that was never used and rusted away...do YOU want bacteria in your seafood? do YOU want cheap shrimp buffets? If so, say YES to NSF!" The "say yes to nsf" actually rhymes haha.

I can't deal with politics since about five years ago, it just makes me feel stressed-out and sad. Living in DC made me hate it, all of it. (I moved.)

Look, this happens for every facet of government spending and both parties know exactly how to phrase their soundbite to make it worse. Anyone taking government funding for any project better be ready to deal with an out of context soundbite in a professional and calm manner. It is the nature of the beast. You are using someone else's money for something and the someone else gets a bit peeved that s/he had to give up the money in the first place.

The common refrain that Republicans don't understand science or Democrats don't understand business is not true and not your friend. JackFr's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8611038 points out some of the good lines that contradict the tried and true arguments.

The proper way to deal with these type of things is learn that you are taking money, its not your right, and show how you are actually being innovative and saving the taxpayers money or show what family members you are saving with your activity.

I've seen enough people doing amazing work on the taxpayers dime that really saved the taxpayers money in the long run (early childhood screenings for example) that knew how to properly phrase their work to make both parties their champion.

tldr: you take the taxpayer's money then be ready to do PR

That's a great explanation - for an audience willing to take the time to read it. But your arsenal of political weapons needs to include soundbites for an audience not willing to take the time to read. Here's how I would summarize the content more quotably:

"Actually it cost fifty dollars, and we were trying to figure out how to stop people dying of food poisoning. Is your life worth fifty dollars?"

I don't have a problem with the $3M, shrimp on a tread mill, or $3M for shrimp on a tread mill. The problem I have is I still don't know what this guy was trying to discover even after I read the article. If your going to ask tax payers for $3M do us all a favor and spend a couple of hundred explaining in layman's terms why!

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube....

This reminds me a bit of when Sarah Palin derided worm research (C elegans), ignorant of the fact that such research was the backbone of genetics and neurobiology research.

War on Science in US is astounding. It is amazing how US still manages to be ahead in most areas of science and technology.

It's not just the US. Just today the UK press made the lead scientist of the Rosetta mission cry by attacking his SHIRT instead of celebrating his achievements.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/11231320/Rosetta-mi...

Nonsense. His achievement was celebrated as well.

His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science, so the fact that he publicly acknowledged his error will make other scientists more consciously think about inclusivity, helping science in the long run.

Incorrect, women aren't as weak as you think they are. He worked with many awesome women to make this mission happen BTW.

More likely this type of overreaction and hysteria will keep free thinking individuals out of science.

If you think this is not a big deal, you should become familiar with the Petrie multiplier. Women shouldn't need thicker skin than men to work in science, but that won't get fixed as long as we keep ignoring the problem, limiting the speed of scientific advancement by limiting the population of scientists. http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-wh...

This wasn't an attack on "men" it was an attack on a specific man and yes, it was totally outrageous.

Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.

You didn't even read what the Petrie multiplier is, making your whole post a straw man attack.

man, 'vei just read what the Petrie multiplier is. It clearly explains why, given equal sexism by men and women, women's experience is worst. Thus to equalize experience, according to the Petrie multiplier, men should decrease their sexism way below women's. Forcing men to decrease their sexism way below women's is an attack on men by definition, and the Petrie multiplier provides mathematical foundation for it.

Is it really that much of a burden not to be sexist or racist? The obliviousness I see in this supposedly enlightened industry astounds me.

you probably didn't read what Petrie multiplier is - it clearly explains why heavily disbalanced industry like hi-tech consisting of practically non-sexist/non-racist Jesus-es would feel like sexist and racist environment by the corresponding minorities. Onus is on you to show that people in the industry are actually sexist and racist - according to Petrie multiplier, minorities feeling bad isn't enough to conclude that the majority consists of sexist and racist people.

You misunderstood what the Petrie multiplier is. It assumes equal non-zero racism/sexism/minorityism. It doesn't matter whether it is a majority. I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.

>You misunderstood what the Petrie multiplier is. It assumes equal non-zero racism/sexism/minorityism.

misunderstanding is all yours. Equal sexism results in worse experience by the members of minority. Equal experience would necessarily require lower sexism displayed by the members of the majority - read the Petrie multiplier post again if you don't understand that statement. Thus push for equal experience in a male dominated environment is an equivalent of push for the males in that environment to display lower sexism than the women in the same environment. In other words it is an "attack on men".

>I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.

And there is no reason why people shouldn't violate red light. In theory. They do it in practice.

I wouldn't want to work in a workplace which wears its objectification on its sleeve like that. Your argument seems to be that I'm weak because of all the opportunities available to me I would prefer to work someplace else.

Thus, while I think that lern_too_spel is incomplete, in that some men may also stay out of science for these reasons, I strongly object to your name calling. I am not "weak" for my decisions on the sort of work environments I will participate in.

Nor do I think that others, women or men, who make the same decision are weak. Yet, oddly, you want to call me and them names for making what I think are principled decisions. That sounds like a back-handed taunt by you to those who stay out of a given workplace for these reasons.

There's of course no clear cut line. Would a shirt using Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" instead be a problem? Playboy's famous "Lenna" picture for image processing? The full original Lenna centerfolds hanging on the wall? A background screensaver showing people having sex? Or on a related subject, a cross hanging on the wall, along with quotes from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", and prayers to start off each workplace meeting? Mounted trophy heads from all of the hunts from various staff outings? A mariachi band walking through the offices every 10 minutes? Unairconditioned offices next to a pig farm and under the approach path to Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport?

Each case is personal, and one's personal decision to avoid a certain workplace or even career must not be considered a weakness.

Is it hysteria to suggest that what men in a male dominated field think is appropriate might have statistical significance in the representation of women?

But at the same time, this guy is bound to get other people interested in science that may not have been before. He's a freaking inked up metal fan.[1] I don't think every person needs to make "more women in STEM" their life's mission. It is something that needs to be done. But what about a mission of "more [other people] in STEM" for a few of them.

[1] http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/11/13/dr-matt-taylor-dude-put...

How many people need to make it their life's mission before there is at least one person who could have explained to this guy to wear a hoodie over his shirt? Why does it take a world wide live stream audience before it is possible to find someone in the building to make that conversation happen?

Maybe it took a world wide live stream audience to find enough loud people to complain about it. Not every one has an issue with his shirt. So it is not without reason to think that nobody he works with took offense to his shirt because they know him for more than his clothes.

His shirt is the kind of thing that keeps women away from science?

This all started with s.o. being offended by it while watching the original interview, but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that? Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview? Is there any kind of imperial evidence that this person's shirt is making female students turn away from science?

I honestly don't understand how it's even possible to get to that conclusion. If there's s.o. interested in a specific field and (s)he witnesses a major scientific breakthrough, then the last thing on your mind would be '...but how could the person be wearing that?'.

If you're offended by it, then ask why this happened in the first place, because maybe there's an actual good explanation behind it.

For me it's in the same category as people saying they don't want anything to do with computers because Turing was gay - how does one thing have anything to do with the other?

> but how can you come to such a conclusion based on that?

I don't think anyone can prove it right now, only find it plausible or probable. Of course that's a long way from proof, but the opposite is also true - can you demonstrate that this shirt, in the context of a wider trend of what people can and do wear, does not affect the number of women in science?

> Did the female student's lecture attendance/signup rate plummet since that interview?

This is disingenuous, I'm sure you know that no criticism of the shirt is because this specific, individual incident would be perceived to be of overwhelming importance for any given statistic, and I think your attempt to portray things this way is a strawman or a horrible misunderstanding. As above, it is the example of wearing this shirt in the context of wider trends in what people do (and wear) that people are criticising. You can still disagree with them, but at least disagree on a point you didn't just make up.

> can you demonstrate that this shirt, in the context of a wider trend of what people can and do wear, does not affect the number of women in science?

We also can't demonstrate that it was in fact the shirt that made him such a great scientist.

No, his shirt wont keep women away from science.

The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.

So you are saying pictures of scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects can't make women feel degraded and objectified?

They're only scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects if women feel degraded and objectified as sexual objects about the scenes. As a woman made the shirt and gave it to him then it seems to be the case that at least 1 woman does not feel degraded and objectified as a sexual object about it which makes your blanket assertion disingenuous and patently false.

Consider that it may be more degrading and objectifying to treat all women as weak, fragile beings who must constantly be sheltered from things like shirts with retro tattoo art on them.

While the rest of us are busy trying to help provide opportunities for more women to get into STEM careers, there's a whole cadre of privileged, middle class noise generators doing a great deal of harm (or at the very least, not helping) with these sexist stereotypes.

No, he is saying this:

'No, his shirt wont keep women away from science. The entire fiasco is not about science, it is LITERALLY the thing that I would want to avoid if I had planned going into this field, and I assume that women also do not want long drawn out discussions about what they are wearing INSTEAD of their impressive scientific achievements.'

It's appalling that in the science/tech community there is so little understanding for these issues. In a perfectly equal world, yes, such a shirt would be just completely inappropriate instead of demeaning.

But science does have a sexual abuse problem. Some established male scientists do choose their female collaborators according to taste. Sexual violence does have a tendency of being initiated by men against women.

All this "it's not a big deal" talk is a symptom of not understanding this issue, lacking information and empathy. And this lack of empathy does have an impact.

>But science does have a sexual abuse problem. Some established male scientists do choose their female collaborators according to taste. Sexual violence does have a tendency of being initiated by men against women.

I dont think you are wrong about this, but painting individual men with the same broad stroke that is frequently is being applied to women to dehumanize them and discount their achievements isnt the right answer to right the wrongs you are listing.

There are plenty of women's issues that are waiting to be championed that are not what amounts to bikeshedding.

> but painting individual men with the same broad stroke

"Not all men!"

And I'm sure not all women are going to make snap judgements about a whole field based on what one person in the field wears, yet here we are.

His shirt was a handmade gift from his friend's wife, who's a tattoo artist.

I would personally be surprised to find out that tattoo artists are the kind of thing that keeps women away from science. I mean, it's probably a rare interaction. Blaming their parents seems more productive.

it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear.

as an extreme comparison, if it was a woman dominated field and they commonly wore shirts depicting scantily clad men with bulging pants, I think it would impact my desire to enter that field.

I don't know that the parents can be blamed so readily. Here in Los Angeles at least, I've been very dissaspointed with what my classmates consider appropriate.

As far as gender oppression goes... that shirt ranks pretty low. Lets solve, pay disparity and workplace harrassment before we deciding whether to worry about shirts.

Feminism is not about being precious, it's about equality (which shirts have very little to do with).

> it is that he found it an appropriate shirt to wear.

It was a hand-made gift from a friend. He did it to make her smile. In such circumstances I'd probably do the same thing.

Oh, That Shirt. I thought that was just some feminists divorced from reality who got busy complaining. Meanwhile, during the livecast, when the go/no-go decisions took place the night before the comet landing, you could see one woman engineer and two or three men engineers on duty in the control room, and they all interacted with each other as if they were peers.

I'm blessed to be ignorant about sexism in Silicon Valley, but in Darmstadt it looks that as a woman you are just fine.

> you could see one woman engineer and two or three men engineers on duty in the control room, and they all interacted with each other as if they were peers.

This is a remarkably short sighted attitude. I mean, maybe there is totally no problem with the shirt, but it's just a false argument to say 'I saw some women in science so there is no problem'.

No, it shows that civilization has arrived in Darmstadt. It's an ideal to aspire to, and the folks in the ESO control room have managed to get there. (I believe that in my old university department we have arrived in the same place.)

Everywhere should be like that, and I doubt you get there by banning shirts with surfer babes on. Jesus was up to something when he said "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person." This was in the context of observing the divine commandments. It's the problem I have with overly specific codes of conduct. If you are an asshole you can and will work around the specific stipulations, and you are and remain an asshole.

the world we're increasingly living at. "I'd not know "- "What to wear? You'll come up with something."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tH...

This is the first I've heard of this, but it hardly seems like the UK press made him do it. The lady asked a question about his achievement and he responded talking about his shirt.

Perhaps he genuinely felt bad about what he (probably unthinkingly) chose to wear, the possible message it sends, and wanted to address it?

It was a reaction to an article yesterday on The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213819/your-bowling-shir...)

So sadly, it was the US press that made this happen.

American prudes can spoil a party like nobody else, you have to give them that.

Like /u/exstudent says, it was a reaction to a Verge article and a huge shi(r)tstorm that followed after that, on Twitter and elsewhere. SJWs made the guy completely break down.

Moaning about a scientist's sexist shirt is probably a case of misplaced priorites, but it's not like anyone is denying the existence of the landing or the spaceship, whereas here you have public figures who cheerfully deny the reality of biological evolution or climate change in order to chase votes.

It's not like anyone is going to gut the European Space Agency budget over Dr. Wossname's shirt, though.

No, but it's horribly unfair to ruin what is probably going to be the most important day in this guy's life.

The shirt was made by a woman who's friends with the guy anyway. He's just quirky, not sexist. We shouldn't label him as such.

I really don't care. It's not relevant to the original article about the misrepresentation of science in politics, yet your derail has become the largest thing in the thread and sucked all the oxygen out of the original discussion.

Nothing to do with attacking science and everything to do with making diverse members of the science community feel welcome.

Diverse, as long as you dress EXACTLY how you're "supposed" to.

A friend made him this shirt. He was wearing it as a tribute since the day was important to him. He got nailed to the wall.

Remember when scientists and engineers could dress how they wanted and be independent thinkers? It's sad to see that coming to an end. This is not a win for science or free thought.

Diverse, as long as you respect your colleagues.

Wearing a t-shirt with scantily clad women (or men) on it is not acceptable in any workplace. Just like watching porn is not appropriate in the workplace.

There is no end in sight for independent thought in science, but the end of thoughtless marginalisation of women is most definitely overdue.

edit: honestly - downvotes for this? Think about what that means.

His female colleagues had no issue with the shirt. It was the guy who wrote The Verge article and the following pile on that had issue with it.

In fact some of his female colleagues came to his defense on Twitter.

In fact some of his female colleagues came to his defense on Twitter.

(as did the woman who made the shirt in the first place: https://twitter.com/ellypriZeMaN/status/533287464497332225)

That's completely irrelevant. The problem is that he wore a shirt that sexualises women in a televised major scientific event. Millions of people saw the video, and the image he projected was that he's more interested in sex than in making women feel welcome and valued in science. Which is incidentally the same image you're portraying.

"the image he projected was that he's more interested in sex than in making women feel welcome and valued in science. "

Was the shirt professionally appropriate? No.

Was he "projecting that he was more interested in sex than women in science"? No.

Overstating the case is probably the worst sin in political discussions. It might feel all good to do it, but all it does is make it easy for you to be dismissed entirely.

Why not?

Get the repressed individuals out of the office and it's totally fine, some people are comfortable in their own skin, some people aren't.

My partner would like to wear lower cut tops than she's allowed to at work, so I don't see how some arbitrary dress code reduces marginalization of women.

In some places how you dress is very important to clients, some people are able to see through the clothes one wears to the value they provide. There is no universal dress code that ends marginalization of women, because gasp different women have different opinions on what they'd like to wear.

It's hard to say that he was disrespecting his colleagues considering that not one of them told him not to wear it. Even if they were scared to do so you would expect someone of higher or equal status to him to say something if it was really seen as a problem. IMO this is a culture clash between American and British culture. In the US it would be unthinkable for someone to wear a shirt like that just because it would be seen as unprofessional, even by a misogynist (which I don't think the Dr. is). In the UK they don't take things like that as serious and are also more tolerant of sex images. It's quite likely that no one thought anything of his shirt until people (Americans) started complaining about it on Twitter.

Do you think they didn't tell him not to wear it because they didn't deem it offensive or perhaps even because they are scientists and engineers that determined that it is merely an article of clothing and it would be prudent to wear any shirt in lieu of going on camera not wearing a shirt at all? (I hope you appreciate the humor in my response as I upvoted yours because I agree with your thoughts on the matter).

Why is this shirt sexist ? Since when are scantily clad women based themes sexist ? Or was it something he said that's missing in the article ?

It was a questionably appropriate shirt but when they interviewed him, he gave a strange answer about how this comet was “The sexiest mission there’s ever been. She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/13/why-women-in-...

Thankfully, the term "sexy" doesn't just apply to sex as the informal definition is something exciting, appealing, interesting and/or stimulating.

Meh, it was still a weird interview, especially combined with his shirt. I watched it live with my fiance and we were both confused and actually said out loud, "We'll be hearing about him later on."

I don't think he's sexist, I'm sure he's a well-respected and well-liked scientist, and I don't think it's fair to judge someone's worth based on a short interview when they're not used to being in the spotlight.

At the same time, I would expect more professionalism from the whole staff at ESA. Are there any offices where wearing this [http://i.imgur.com/oJ9bVDt.jpg] shirt would be okay? People are making a big deal about the fact that a woman made the shirt for him, but they seem to be omitting that he provided the fabric and asked her to make it..

A large part of the rationale for missions like Rosetta is the inspiration it provides to the next generation of scientists. Hearing crude jokes about how 'easy' the mission was from a guy wearing a nudie shirt doesn't exactly invoke inspiration. It's a shame all of the other incredibly smart, professional, and inspirational people involved with the project are overshadowed by this.

Fortunately, science is largely unencumbered by the fashion choices of the people who participate in it. Furthermore, as outlandish as this shirt may be I find it to be quite refreshing that a tatted up metal fan wearing a shirt like this can still be well-respected in his field for his accomplishments and rise above a moment of questionable judgement and a fashion faux pas.

True, except the context is "she" and "I never said she was easy" which makes it clear that he's weirdly kludging some ham-fisted innuendo on it.

This is stupid. His shirt looks like old pinball artwork. It's obviously a vintage throwback that's harmless to anyone who isn't currently obsessed with gender politics.

These feminists are so divorced from reality they are desperate and seeing everything through the prism of their bunk thought-experiments that they have to make literally everything about their imaginary oppression.

Can we have one good news story without trying to make it relevant to your gender-studies major?

He should have had naked males in leather straps there too, I guess.

I really doubt people would be freaking out on twitter if some animated firemen looking guys were printed on his shirt, especially if was an established art-form like anime. I guess what offends one offends all and should be banned because it promotes oppressions, a lot to read into from the anime printed on a shirt.

See European freakouts about GMOs for evidence that it's not just the US.

The thing to remember is that the War on Science is really a lot of little battles. Science says a lot of things that people take offense to, inside or outside the US. For instance:

  * Releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the
    atmosphere has significant, negative consequences.
  * Most complementary & alternative medicines are ineffective
    in most cases.
  * Contraceptions are not abortifacients.
  * Tobacco use causes cancer.
  * There is no compelling evidence that ESP or any other
    psychic powers exist.
  * Cuts to government spending during a downturn can weaken
    the economy.
  * Oswald, acting alone and for his own reasons, killed
    Kennedy.
  * Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth,
    including humans.

But just because someone takes offense to one or more things science says, most people don't take offense to all things science says. This fragments the War -- there aren't two sides, there are a million -- and lets science as a whole progress even as individual areas and projects face varying amounts of hostilities from individuals, organizations, and corporations.

How does science say that Oswald was acting alone and for his own reasons? I am aware of how it can show he was the only shooter, but have not seen any science showing that no one else was involved in the overall operation.

i thought the same thing, although things like disproving the need for a 'magic bullet' takes the wind out of a lot of conspiracy theories. science may not ever 100% prove oswald was 100% alone, but it makes a lot of the whacko theories a lot less required.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com