#Marcia McNutt

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Marcia McNutt

Published: Nov 14, 2024

Long before the 5 November US presidential election, I had become ever more concerned that science has fallen victim to the same political divisiveness tearing at the seams of American society. This is a tragedy because science is the best—arguably the only—approach humankind has developed to peer into the future, to project the outcomes of various possible decisions using the known laws of the natural world. Since the founding of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) during the Civil War, the most divisive period in US history, science and the NAS (of which I am the current president) have consistently served the nation, regardless of the political party in power. As the scientific community continues to do so now, it must take a critical look at what responsibility it bears in science becoming politically contentious, and how scientists can rebuild public trust.

For starters, scientists need to better explain the norms and values of science to reinforce the notion—with the public and their elected representatives—that science, at its most basic, is apolitical. Careers of scientists advance when they improve upon, or show the errors in, the work of others, not by simply agreeing with prior work. Whether conservative or liberal, citizens ignore the nature of reality at their peril. A recent example is the increased death rate from COVID-19 (as much as 26% higher) in US regions where political leaders dismissed the science on the effectiveness of vaccines. Scientists should better explain the scientific process and what makes it so trustworthy, while more candidly acknowledging that science can only provide the best available evidence and cannot dictate what people should value. Science cannot say whether society should prioritize allocating river water for sustaining fish or for irrigating farms, but it can predict immediate and long-term outcomes of any allocation scheme. Science can also find solutions that avoid the zero-sum dilemma by finding conservation approaches to water management that benefit both fish and farms.

In addition, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine need to examine how scientists may have contributed to the polarization of the use of science. Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy. It is up to elected officials to determine policy based on the outcomes desired by their constituents. It is the role of science to inform these decision-makers as to whether those desired outcomes are likely to result from the policies being enacted.

The scientific community must also better recognize that it may not be helpful to emphasize consensus in policy reports’ recommendations when the underlying values are not universally shared. For example, although science can affirm that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, science can only predict the outcome of the various policies that might be enacted to address the problem. It is up to society and its elected leadership to decide how to balance these options, including the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation, carbon capture, or even various interventions that reflect sunlight back into space.

Last month the NAS Council issued a statement reaffirming its core principles of objectivity, independence, and excellence. This commitment requires including viewpoints far beyond just those of academia in National Academies’ advisory committees. Building trust will require more active listening to affected communities—for example, farmers, fishermen, and conservationists in the water example above. At the same time, the scientific community must fight scientific mis- and disinformation as though lives depended on truth and trust, because they do.

The public and policy-makers can discuss and debate how to respond to the myriad challenges that confront society, but these deliberations need to be informed by the objective, dispassionate evidence that only science can provide. To that end, the NAS stands ready, as it always has, to advise the incoming administration.

==

Note: Marcia McNutt is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

[keithanime]

If in light of new evidence you have never changed your position, you're practicing religion, you're not practicing science.

Marcia McNutt, Geophysicist, 22nd President of the National Academy of Sciences

Video Source: Nobel Prize @ Youtube

[reasoningdaily]

Pioneered by digital literacy experts, the "Sift" strategy is a technique for spotting fake news and misleading social media posts, says Amanda Ruggeri.

It's no secret that misinformation is rampant on social media. And it's even more so in some subjects than others. Research has found, for example, that around two-thirds of the most popular YouTube videos on vaccines contain misinformation. The fall-out can be dire: an uptick in inaccurate anti-vaccination content online correlates with a decline in vaccination coverage, especially among children. That has led to larger outbreaks of potentially deadly diseases, like measles, than have been seen in recent years.

"Misinformation is worse than an epidemic," Marcia McNutt, president of the US National Academy of Sciences, put it in 2021, implicitly referring to the Covid-19 pandemic. "It spreads at the speed of light throughout the globe and can prove deadly when it reinforces misplaced personal bias against all trustworthy evidence."

HOW NOT TO BE MANIPULATED

In today's onslaught of overwhelming information (and misinformation), it can be difficult to know who to trust. In this column, Amanda Ruggeri explores smart, thoughtful ways to navigate the noise. Drawing on insights from psychology, social science and media literacy, it offers practical advice, new ideas and evidence-based solutions for how to be a wiser, more discerning critical thinker.

There are many reasons why misinformation travels so quickly – according to some research, even faster than accurate information. One reason is that people are far more likely to share a claim when it confirms their pre-existing beliefs, regardless of its accuracy. This cognitive bias may help explain why even more misinformation seems to be shared by individuals than by bots. One study, for example, found that just 15% of news sharers spread up to 40% of fake news.

That's a sobering statistic, but there's an upside. As long as individuals are the ones responsible for sharing so much misinformation, we're also the ones who – by being more mindful of what we "like", share, and amplify – can help make the greatest change.

When it comes to not falling for misinformation, being aware of our human fallibilities, such as our quickness to believe what we want to believe, is a good first step. Research shows that even being more reflective in general can "inoculate" us against believing fake news.

But it's not the only thing that we can do. In particular, researchers have found there are several simple, concrete strategies that we all can (and should) use, especially before we're tempted to share or repeat a claim, to verify its accuracy first.

One of my favourites comes with a nifty acronym: the Sift method. Pioneered by digital literacy expert Mike Caulfield, it breaks down into four easy-to-remember steps.

1. S is for… Stop

Perhaps one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern era is its urgency. Thanks to everything from our continual phone use to nonstop work demands, far too many of us seem to be navigating the world at a dizzying speed.

Being online, where both news cycles and content are especially fast-paced and often emotive, can put us in a particularly "urgent" mindset. But when it comes to identifying misinformation, immediacy is not our friend. Research has found that relying on our immediate "gut" reactions is more likely to lead us astray than if we take a moment to stop and reflect. 

The first step of the Sift method interrupts this tendency. Stop. Don't share the post. Don't comment on it. And move on to the next step.

2. I is for… Investigate the source

Posts show up in our social media feeds all the time without us having a clear sense of who created them. Maybe they were shared by a friend. Maybe they were pushed to us by the algorithm. Maybe we followed the creator intentionally, but never looked into their background.

Now's the time to find this out. Who created this post? Get off-platform and do a web search. And because search results can be misleading, make sure you're looking at a reputable website. One that fact-checkers often use as a first port of call might surprise you: Wikipedia. While it's not perfect, it has the benefit of being crowd-sourced, which means that its articles about specific well-known people or organisations often cover aspects like controversies and political biases.

While you're investigating, ask:

If the creator is a media outlet, are they reputable and respected, with a recognised commitment to verified, independent journalism?

If it's an individual, what expertise do they have in the subject at hand (if any)? What financial ties, political leanings or personal biases may be at play?

If it's an organisation or a business, what is their purpose? What do they advocate for, or sell? Where does their funding come from? What political leanings have they shown?

And finally, once you've run your analysis (which can take just a couple of minutes), the most telling question of all: Would you still trust this creator's expertise in this subject if they were saying something you disagreed with?

3. F is for… Find better coverage

If, from the previous step, you find that you still have questions about the source's credibility, now's the time to dig a little further. What you're looking for is whether a more trustworthy source, like a reputable news outlet or fact-checking service, has reported and verified the same claim.

No surprise, but I find Google has some of the best tools for doing this. Obviously, there's Google itself, and if you're specifically looking to see if news outlets have covered something, Google News.

But I sometimes prefer to use the Google Fact Check search engine, which searches just fact-checking sites, specifically. Just keep in mind that Google says it doesn't vet the fact-checking sites it includes, so to make sure your results are reputable, you'll need to do a little further sleuthing – I like to see if an outlet has signed up to Poynter's International Fact-Checking Network, which you can check here.

If it's a photo you're investigating, use a reverse image search tool to see where else the image comes up online. Google has one, but I also like TinEye and Yandex. (You can also use these for video: take a screenshot from the video and put that in for your image search).

Your goal? To see whether there are any credible sources reporting the same information as what you're seeing, and saying that it's verified.

4. T is for… Trace the claim to its original context

Often, you'll wind up doing this at the same time that you're trying to find better coverage, at least if you're using the tools mentioned above. But the idea here is a little different. You're trying to find out where the claim came from originally.

Even if you see that a claim has been reported on by a credible media outlet, for example, it may not be original reporting; they may have gotten that claim from another outlet. Ideally, the original story should be linked – so always go there – but if it's not, you may need to search for it separately.

Crucially, you want to figure out not just whether something like this really is true, but whether anything was taken out of context. If you're looking at an image, does how it was described in the social media post you saw line up with what its original caption, context, and location? If it's a quotation from a speaker, was anything edited out or taken out of context or, when you see their full interview or speech, does it seem like perhaps they misspoke in that moment?

Taking these steps before deciding whether to simply share a claim might feel onerous. But the time investment of just a few minutes may save you not only embarrassment – but help ensure you're not spreading misinformation that, at its most dramatic, can even lead to illness and death.

Today, anyone can make a claim on social media. And anyone can be the person whose re-sharing of that claim is the one who makes it go viral. That means it's the responsibility of each one of us to make sure that what we are posting, liking, and sharing is, first and foremost, actually true.

[sub-at-omicsteminist]

•Marcia McNutt•

[andronetalks]

American Science Slips into Dangerous Decline, Experts Warn, while Chinese Research Surges

Scientific American BY SAIMA S. IQBAL August 7, 2024 In a first-ever “State of the Science” address at the end of June, National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt warned that the U.S. was ceding its global scientific leadership to other countries—highlighting China in particular. McNutt, a widely respected geophysicist, said this slippage could make it harder for the U.S. to maintain…

[jcmarchi]

Nancy Hopkins awarded the National Academy of Sciences Public Welfare Medal

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/nancy-hopkins-awarded-the-national-academy-of-sciences-public-welfare-medal/

Nancy Hopkins awarded the National Academy of Sciences Public Welfare Medal

The National Academy of Sciences has awarded MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, the Amgen Professor of Biology Emerita, with the 2024 Public Welfare Medal in recognition of “her courageous leadership over three decades to create and ensure equal opportunity for women in science.” 

The award recognizes Hopkins’s role in catalyzing and leading MIT’s “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science,” made public in 1999. The landmark report, the result of the efforts of numerous members of the MIT faculty and administration, revealed inequities in the treatment and resources available to women versus men on the faculty at the Institute, helped drive significant changes to MIT policies and practices, and sparked a national conversation about the unequal treatment of women in science, engineering, and beyond.

Since the medal was established in 1914 to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good, it has been awarded to several MIT-affiliated scientists, including Karl Compton, James R. Killian Jr., and Jerome B. Wiesner, as well as Vannevar Bush, Isidor I. Rabi, and Victor Weiskopf.

“The Public Welfare Medal has been awarded to MIT faculty who have helped define our Institute and scientists who have shaped modern science on the national stage,” says Susan Hockfield, MIT president emerita. “It is more than fitting for Nancy to join their ranks, and — importantly — celebrates her critical role in increasing the participation of women in science and engineering as a significant national achievement.”

When Hopkins joined the faculty of the MIT Center for Cancer Research (CCR) in 1973, she did not set out to become an advocate for equality for women in science. For the first 15 years, she distinguished herself in pioneering studies linking genes of RNA tumor viruses to their roles in causing some forms of cancer. But in 1989, Hopkins changed course: She began developing molecular technologies for the study of zebrafish that would help establish it as an important model for vertebrate development and cancer biology.

To make the pivot, Hopkins needed more space to accommodate fish tanks and new equipment. Although Hopkins strongly suspected that she had been assigned less lab space than her male peers in the building, her hypothesis carried little weight and her request was denied. Ever the scientist, Hopkins believed the path to more lab space was to collect data. One night in 1993, with a measuring tape in hand, she visited each lab to quantify the distribution of space in her building. Her hypothesis appeared correct.

Hopkins shared her initial findings — and her growing sense that there was bias against women scientists — with one female colleague, and then others, many of whom reported similar experiences. The senior women faculty in MIT’s School of Science began meeting to discuss their concerns, ultimately documenting them in a letter to Dean of Science Robert Birgeneau. The letter was signed by professors Susan Carey, Sylvia Ceyer, Sallie “Penny” Chisholm, Suzanne Corkin, Mildred Dresselhaus, Ann Graybiel, Ruth Lehmann, Marcia McNutt, Terry Orr-Weaver, Mary-Lou Pardue, Molly Potter, Paula Malanotte-Rizzoli, Leigh Royden, Lisa Steiner, and Joanne Stubbe. Also important were Hopkins’s discussions with Lorna Gibson, a professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, since Gibson had made similar observations with her female colleagues in the School of Engineering. Despite the biases against these women, they were highly accomplished scientists. Four of them were eventually awarded the U.S. National Medal of Science, and 11 were, or became, members of the National Academy of Sciences.

In response to the women in the School of Science, Birgeneau established the Committee on the Status of Women Faculty in 1995, which included both female faculty and three male faculty who had been department chairs: Jerome Friedman, Dan Kleitman, and Robert Silbey. In addition to interviewing essentially all the female faculty members in the school, they collected data on salaries, space, and other resources. The committee found that of 209 tenured professors in the School of Science only 15 were women, and they often had smaller wages and labs, and were raising more of their salaries from grants than equivalent male faculty.

At the urging of Lotte Bailyn, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and chair of the faculty, Hopkins and the committee summarized their findings to be presented to MIT’s faculty. Struck by the pervasive and well-documented pattern of bias against women across the School of Science, both Birgeneau and MIT President Charles Vest added prefaces to the report before it was published in the faculty newsletter. Vest commented, “I have always believed that contemporary gender discrimination within universities is part reality and part perception. True, but I now understand that reality is by far the greater part of the balance.”

Vest took an “engineers’ approach” to addressing the report’s findings, remarking “anything I can measure, I can fix.” He tasked Provost Robert Brown with establishing committees to produce reports on the status of women faculty for all five of MIT’s schools. The reports were published in 2002 and drew attention to the small number of women faculty in some schools, as well as discrepancies similar to those first documented in the School of Science.

In response, MIT implemented changes in hiring practices, updated pay equity reviews, and worked to improve the working environment for women faculty. On-campus day care facilities were built and leave policies were expanded for the benefit of all faculty members with families. To address underrepresentation of individuals of color, as well as the unique biases against women of color, Brown established the Council on Faculty Diversity with Hopkins and Philip Clay, then MIT’s chancellor and a professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning. Meanwhile, Vest spearheaded a collaboration with presidents of other leading universities to increase representation of women faculty.

MIT increased the numbers of women faculty by altering hiring procedures  — particularly in the School of Engineering under Dean Thomas Magnanti and in the School of Science under Birgeneau, and later Associate Dean Hazel Sive. MIT did not need to alter its standards for hiring to increase the number of women on its faculty: Women hired with revised policies at the Institute have been equally successful and have gone on to important leadership roles at MIT and other institutions.

In the wake of the 1999 report the press thrust MIT — and Hopkins — into the national spotlight. The careful documentation in the report and first Birgeneau’s and then Vest’s endorsement of and proactive response to its findings were persuasive to many reporters and their readers. The reports and media coverage resonated with women across academia, resulting in a flood of mail to Hopkins’s inbox, as well as many requests for speaking engagements. Hopkins would eventually undertake hundreds of talks across the United States and many other countries about advocating for the equitable treatment of women in science.

Her advocacy work continued after her retirement. In 2019, Hopkins, along with Hockfield and Sangeeta Bhatia, the John J. and Dorothy Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, founded the Boston Biotech Working Group — which later evolved into the Faculty Founder Initiative — to increase women’s representation as founders and board members of biotech companies in Massachusetts.

Hopkins, however, believes she became “this very visible person by chance.”

“An almost uncountable number of people made this happen,” she continues. “Moreover, I know how much work went on before I even set foot on campus, such as by Emily Wick, Shirley Ann Jackson, Sheila Widnall, and Mildred Dresselhaus. I stood on the shoulders of a great institution and the long, hard work of many people that belong to it.”

The National Academy of Sciences will present the 2024 Public Welfare Medal to Hopkins in April at its 161st annual meeting. Hopkins is the recipient of many other awards and honors, both for her scientific achievements and her advocacy for women in science. She is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the AACR Academy. Other awards include the Centennial Medal from Harvard University, the MIT Gordon Y. Billard Award for “special service” to MIT, the MIT Laya Wiesner Community Award, the Maria Mitchell Women in Science Award, and the STAT Biomedical Innovation Award. In addition, she has received eight honorary doctorates, most recently from Rockefeller University, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and the Weizmann Institute.

[lastsonlost]

And this is from Buzzfeed. Not Fox. Not Breitbart.

She’s The Public Face Of #MeToo In Science. Now Critics Are Speaking Out About Her Tactics.

Seven leaders of the MeTooSTEM group have resigned, citing a lack of transparency and the founder’s combative tweets.

An outspoken campaigner against sexual harassment in science is facing a crisis of leadership at MeTooSTEM, the volunteer organization she founded last year to support victims and hold perpetrators and institutions accountable.

Since November, seven members of the leadership team have resigned, citing concerns about the behavior of its founder, BethAnn McLaughlin, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

In their resignation letters, former MeTooSTEM leaders said that McLaughlin kept them in the dark about key decisions and reacted with hostility when they asked about the small organization’s finances and legal structure. They also worried that McLaughlin had alienated allies through her combative tweets.

“There have been several instances where supporters of MeTooSTEM have been upset by the tenor of your tweets, up to and including blocking you or being blocked by you,” wrote Julie Libarkin, an environmental scientist at Michigan State University who has compiled a database of more than 770 academic sexual misconduct cases, and Tisha Bohr, a biology postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University, in their resignation email sent in November.

“Some of them, victims themselves, have reached out to us for clarification and support ... putting us in an impossible position of trying to support victims as well as you and the movement,” the message continued.

The most recent three departures, on April 24, included the only two women of color on the MeTooSTEM leadership team. “We … felt that white leadership input was prioritized over our own,” wrote Deanna Arsala, a biology graduate student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Vidhya Sivakumaran, a former biophysicist who now works for a health informatics company.

MeTooSTEM was formed after a string of sexual harassmentscandals involving leading scientists, amid growing recognition that sexual and gender harassment is a pervasive problem in science. The rifts within the organization come against the backdrop of a debate about how best to tackle these problems, as McLaughlin’s burn-it-all-down zeal clashes with efforts by some activists to work with the academic establishment to achieve reform.

“I am aware that BethAnn is a polarizing person. Much of her effectiveness has been in bringing truth to power and being in your face,” said Carol Greider, a Nobel Prize–winning molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins University, who earlier this month agreed to serve on MeTooSTEM’s board. “And sometimes those approaches do undermine the effectiveness.”

McLaughlin declined multiple requests for comment.

Leaders who have stayed with the organization defended McLaughlin’s activism, much of which is not in public view, they said.

“In my experience, all ideas were welcome and supported,” Britteny Watson, MeTooSTEM’s business manager, told BuzzFeed News by email.

“On the whole, I have personally had positive experiences with BethAnn and MeTooSTEM. I have seen her consistently go above and beyond for survivors, especially for transgender people of color and people who are dealing with issues related to immigration,” said Johanna Folk, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, San Francisco.

Folk added, however, that she can’t speak for anyone else. “My overall positive experience does not negate the concerns of others. All the people who left MeTooSTEM are ones I really look up to and value both personally and professionally. I am grateful for all of their work."

MeTooSTEM is not the first grassroots activist organization to face growing pains: Occupy Wall Street was riven by infightingamong its founders; the Women’s March was accused of anti-Semitism; Black Lives Matter has wrestled with debates over its future direction; and the March for Science, formed to protest the Trump administration’s science policies, added women of color to its leadership in 2017 after complaints that it was neglecting the concerns of minority groups.

McLaughlin is a particular lightning rod within the #MeToo movement in science because she has become its public face amid concerns that her combative approach may sometimes do more harm than good.

“There is a distinction between trying to speak truth to power and just bringing heat.”

“There is a distinction between trying to speak truth to power and just bringing heat,” said Kate Clancy, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois in Urbana and an longtime advocate of women facing sexual harassment in science, who reached out to former volunteers after seeing their resignation tweets.

“What I’m hearing and seeing is heat being brought to women of color, heat being brought to grad students, and heat being brought to victims of sexual harassment,” Clancy said.

McLaughlin’s public activism grew from turmoil in her own career at Vanderbilt. Her application for tenure was put on hold after another Vanderbilt neuroscientist, Aurelio Galli, accused her of sending abusive tweets about him and other colleagues from multiuser accounts.

Galli had already been accused of sexual harassment by a former PhD student, who in July 2014 sued him and the university. McLaughlin later testified in support of a research collaborator from the University of Washington who in January 2015 alleged that Galli said, during a dinner at his house, that he would spend “every last penny” to make sure the person who accused him was ruined. (Vanderbilt settled the lawsuit brought by the PhD student in December 2014, and the judge dismissed her case against Galli.)

McLaughlin’s tenure application eventually restarted in 2017, but a faculty committee voted against her. She filed a grievance, which was rejected in February. (Galli has left Vanderbilt for the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and filed his own lawsuit against McLaughlin for defamation in October 2018.)

McLaughlin rose to public prominence in May 2018, when she launched a petition asking the National Academy of Sciences remove members who had been sanctioned for sexual harassment. She followed up with a similar demand to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and later pressured the National Institutes of Health, the main federal funding agency for biomedical research, to stop giving grants to harassers and to exclude them from committees that help decide which scientists should get funded.

Through her acerbic Twitter account @McLNeuro, McLaughlin railed against “harassholes” and sparredwith scientific leaders including NAS President Marcia McNutt. In June 2018, she founded MeTooSTEM, initially as a website for women in science to tell their own stories about harassment.

She got results. In June 2018, the website RateMyProfessors.com dropped its “chili pepper” rating of professors’ “hotness” after a McLaughlin tweet criticizing the feature as “obnoxious and utterly irrelevant” was widely shared. In September, the AAAS announced a procedure to remove elected fellows involved in cases of sexual or gender harassment. And in February this year, NIH Director Francis Collins and other agency leaders cited McLaughlin’s activism in a statement that apologized for a failure to “address the climate and culture that has caused such harm” and promised: “We can do better. We must do better.”

Praise for McLaughlin culminated in November 2018 with the $250,000 MIT Media Lab Disobedience Award, which she shared with Tarana Burke, the civil rights activist who founded the #MeToo movement, and Sherry Marts, who has worked with scientific organizations and other nonprofits to make their events more inclusive.

But by that time, volunteers who had joined MeTooSTEM were starting to leave the organization.

First to depart, on Nov. 9, were the two scientists behind the @9replyguys Twitter account, launched to highlight the trolling and unhelpful comments that women often experience on social media. Scott Barolo, a cell biologist at the University of Michigan, said that he and the anonymous @shrewshrew, the account’s other author, were worried about a lack of transparency over the direction, structure, and finances of the organization.

“@shrewshrew and I became concerned that we were publicly associated with a fundraising organization that we didn’t understand and couldn’t get any information about,” Barolo told BuzzFeed News by email.

They were followed later that month by Bohr and Libarkin. “I left because I felt like attempts to organize structure and incorporate inclusive language were dismissed or ignored, that credit wasn't being properly allocated, and that differing opinions were often met with hostility both privately and publicly,” Bohr told BuzzFeed News.

“The things which people want (bylaws, structure, hierarchy, communication) are all critical,” McLaughlin replied to Bohr and Libarkin’s resignation email. “But those things do not have to happen now.”

Other leaders said that they pressed McLaughlin to give them designated roles. “When we tried to make long-term plans, BethAnn wasn’t really interested,” Erica Smith, a physics postdoctoral fellow at Indiana University Bloomington, who resigned in April, told BuzzFeed News. “We had a leadership team in name, but not really in practice.”

Smith, Arsala, and Sivakumaran left after a tense exchange of messages with McLaughlin after they asked questions about MeTooSTEM’s nonprofit status and finances, boosted by a GoFundMe launched in October 2018. The campaign has so far raised more than $78,000 toward a $200,000 goal. The money, according to the donation page, will be used to file for status as a tax-exempt nonprofit and to provide legal help for victims of harassment.

McLaughlin has also clashed on Twitter with activists who have disagreed with her. In August 2018, Anna Waymack, a humanities graduate student at Cornell University, responded to a McLaughlin tweet that told victims of campus sexual assault: “Title IX is broken. Go the the police.”

After Waymack argued that survivors should make their own choices, and pointed out that some have been further traumatized by the criminal justice system, McLaughlin cut her short with a one-word tweet: “Bye.”

“Being blown off like that was personally upsetting but also concerning because it replicates what the academy already does with that sort of dismissiveness,” Waymack told BuzzFeed News.

Last month, McLaughlin tweeted angrily at Hontas Farmer, a transgender woman of color who teaches physics at the City Colleges of Chicago. In a thread about student–faculty relationships, Farmer noted that it would be “unenforceable to forbid relationships.”

“Get off my time line with your pro-preying on students garbage,” McLaughlin responded. “Grown ups are talking. #STEMTrollAlert.”

That hashtag had previously been used to encourage allies to defend women scientists being trolled on Twitter. In response to its use against Farmer, one Twitter user tweeted an image of Jimmy Fallon in a wig. (The user later deleted the tweet, and apologized to Farmer.)

Farmer told BuzzFeed News that she has experienced worse attacks online, and she has continued to retweet McLaughlin after the incident. “I’ve dealt with people like BethAnn before. They’re very driven by what they believe and that sometimes makes them do wrong things,” she said.

McLaughlin’s strongly held beliefs extend to the current debate about how best to reduce sexual harassment in academia. Speaking at a meeting at the NIH on May 16, she condemned an effort launched in April called the Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education, led by the National Academies and involving more than 40 colleges, universities, and research institutions.

“Every single one of them takes this Action Collaborative as a gold ribbon that they have done something right,” McLaughlin said. “They have all done something terribly, terribly wrong, and they have the wrong people at the table.”

That position has put her at odds with advocates including Clancy and Greider, who argue that reform should involve leading institutions. “I disagree with BethAnn about that,” Greider said. “We can have disagreements about approaches and still go forward.”

The volunteers who have left MeTooSTEM said that they are still committed to its wider goals of supporting victims of sexual harassment. “I believe that STEM would greatly benefit from having an organization, or more than one, with the goals of fighting sexual harassment and discrimination,” Barolo said.

“My hope is that we can learn from this experience to make a stronger and more inclusive community intent on battling harassment,” Bohr said.

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/science/science-academy-pushes-to-eject-members-found-guilty-of-sexual-harassment/

Science Academy Pushes to Eject Members Found Guilty of Sexual Harassment

The National Academy of Sciences moved this week toward a landmark shift in policy that would allow it for the first time to eject members who have violated its code of conduct, including in cases of sexual harassment.

The group’s members, who include some of the world’s most prominent scientists, are elected to lifetime positions, and currently they can only be asked to depart.

But as the science world moves to address gender imbalances, discrimination and sexual harassment against women in historically male-dominated fields, the academy has faced pressure to change its membership rules.

In a preliminary vote on Tuesday at the group’s annual meeting in Washington, members approved an amendment to the organization’s bylaws that would give it the power to remove any scientist who engages in sexual harassment, discrimination, bullying or other activities as defined in a new Code of Conduct.

A final vote by the academy’s full membership of about 2,000 scientists is expected by mid-June.

“Some members have been asked to resign before, but we never had the capability to force the member to resign,” Marcia McNutt, the president of the academy, said in an interview on Thursday.

Controversies involving academy members and other scientists have engulfed numerous laboratories, lecture halls and conferences in recent years.

In 2015, Geoffrey W. Marcy, an acclaimed astronomer, resigned from the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley after he was found guilty in a campus investigation of sexually harassing students.

In 2018, Columbia University removed a top neuroscientist, Thomas Jessell, from his posts after an internal investigation uncovered violations of “university policies and values.”

As The New York Times has reported, studies have documented biases that favor male scientists in hiring, salary, start-up funds, credit for authorship, invitations to give talks at prestigious university seminars and invitations to speak on conference panels (a.k.a. “manels”).

Some argue that changes need to take root in the institutions that support scientists in the United States, where female scientists hold only about 30 percent of senior faculty positions. In October, the National Science Foundation started to require institutions to notify it if a scientist working on a project using the foundation’s funds was found to have harassed someone.

The vote at the National Academy of Sciences was a similar effort, Dr. McNutt said. The group’s umbrella organization, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, had commissioned a study on gender issues just before the accusations against Harvey Weinstein became public in 2017 and propelled the #MeToo movement era into the center of the national conversation, she said.

“The problem of sexual harassment spread from not just the entertainment industry and politics but also into science,” Dr. McNutt said. “We heard the names of a number of prominent scientists that were being put into the news, but the academy decided it needed to wait until this report came out.”

In June 2018, the National Academies released the results of that gender study, its first on the issue. It concluded that years of efforts to prevent sexual harassment in science, engineering and medicine had failed, and recommended that universities and legislators make sweeping changes in how they respond to allegations of harassment.

The issue was a sensitive one for the National Academies because some of its members had been found to have sexually harassed people at their universities.

“It basically said we needed to address sexual harassment as seriously as other forms of academic misconduct, such as plagiarism,” she said.

In August 2018, the National Academy of Sciences started to draft its Code of Conduct, and this week’s vote on the bylaws was a way to enforce it, Dr. McNutt said. “The academy felt we have to practice what we preach,” she said.

About 95 percent of those voting were in favor, she said, while the others were worried about the process by which suspected violations would be adjudicated. Dr. McNutt said the process was still being “refined,” but could include cases in which universities have taken action, or in which scientists are fired or there is public documentation about misdeeds.

“Then we would decide whether it is relevant,” she said. “We would decide what sort of punishment seems reasonable, given the severity of the offense.”

Nancy Hopkins, a molecular biologist and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who in 1994 measured laboratory space for a report on gender discrimination that drew national attention, said the academy’s move was an “excellent idea.”

“Putting the power and prestige of the Academy behind this — and other issues of scientific misconduct — is hugely important,” she wrote on Thursday in an email. “It won’t solve this problem but it is a critical component of the solution — as we continue to advance solutions to these issues for the good of science.”

On social media, reaction from women in sciences to the vote was swift, with some saying that such a move was long overdue.

(The Times reported on Daniel Carleton Gajdusek’s sentencing in 1997 for abusing a boy.)

The academy has taken other steps to try to address recurring problems in its more than 150-year history. This week, it announced that it had elected 100 new members, 40 of them women, the most elected in any one year to date.

Dr. McNutt said that about 18 percent of the academy’s members were women but that they made up about half of its governing council.

“It is wrong to say that it is a male-dominated organization,” she added, “because the voices of the women are well respected.”

[moodoov]

발트해 파이프라인 누출로 해양 생물과

발트해 파이프라인 누출로 해양 생물과

발트해 파이프라인 누출로 해양 생물과 기후 피해 먹튀사이트 모음 워싱턴(AP) — 러시아와 유럽을 연결하는 손상된 Nord Stream 파이프라인에서 새어 나오는 메탄으로 인해 단기간에 가장 큰 가스 ​​누출이 발생할 가능성이 있으며 전 세계 다른 곳에서 대규모 메탄 누출 문제를 강조합니다. , 과학자들은 말합니다. 미국 국립과학원(National Academy of Sciences)의 마샤 맥넛(Marcia McNutt) 회장은 “내가 본 바에 따르면 이것은 집중된 배출원에서 매우 짧은 시간에 대기권에 있는 화석 메탄의 전례 없는 손실”이라고 말했다. 그녀는 2010년 멕시코만 기름 유출 사고의 범위를 평가하려는 미국 정부의 노력을 감독했습니다. 메탄은 지구를 가열하는 데 빠르게 작용합니다.…

[fumpkins]

Leading Peruvian archaeologist ousted by U.S. National Academy of Sciences | Science

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has actually rescinded the subscription of a popular Peruvian archaeologist who likewise served briefly as Peru’s minister of culture. It is the very first time the academy has actually expelled a global member.

Luis Jaime Castillo Butters was examined for unwanted sexual advances in 2020 by the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) after independent reporter Michael Balter released a blog site detailing allegations of sexually harassing behavior from a number of unnamed female trainees, and of homophobic slurs leveled by Castillo Butters at a gay male trainee. Two of the accounts were proven by unnamed teachers. The unique commission that examined Castillo Butters, typically depending on Balter’s reporting, concluded there was proof that he sexually bothered individuals, however stated it might not start disciplinary procedures versus him due to the fact that the supposed offenses happened prior to 2016, when PUCP embraced unwanted sexual advances guidelines.

Castillo Butters rejects the accusations. “I am completely and absolutely innocent of all these claims,” he informed ScienceInsider today. “The NAS process is not fair. It’s not based on justice. The presumption of innocence is not present.”

“I am happy to be out” of NAS, he included. “I am happy to not be a member of a consortium that takes this type of insult lightly.”

The ouster, efficient on 9 October and revealed to NAS members on 13 October, marks the 3rd time in 5 months that the distinguished academy has actually ejected a member for unwanted sexual advances, under law modifications it embraced in 2019. (Prior to that, NAS had no system for ending subscriptions.) The ejection was verified by NAS representative Dana Korsen and is visible to the public through a search tool on NAS’s site.

In May and June, NAS ousted astronomer Geoffrey Marcy, previously of the University of California (UC), Berkeley, and evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala, previously of UC Irvine.

NAS President Marcia McNutt states the eliminations need to communicate that “National Academy of Sciences members need to be role models not only in what they have achieved, but also in setting the highest standards for professional conduct.”

Marcela Poirier, an anthropologist with a Ph.D. from Purdue University who worked for 1 year at a field school that Castillo Butters regularly went to, submitted a grievance with NAS this spring that consisted of the PUCP commission’s report and asked the academy to oust Castillo Butters. Now a supervisor of cultural and academic resources in Lima, she informed ScienceInsider today that NAS’s relocation “sends the message that change is possible, and that justice—however imperfect—can be achieved.”

But, she kept in mind, Castillo Butters is still a complete teacher at PUCP. “My only hope is that other women do not experience what [I and other women] did.”

Castillo Butters states that “I have never been in the same room with Mrs. Poirier other than she taking two classes from me 13 years ago.” In a 6 October letter pleading his case to McNutt, he composed that he has actually begun legal actions in Peru “for aggravated defamation” once again Poirier.

Castillo Butters, a professional on the Moche culture who holds a doctorate from UC Los Angeles, is an effective existence in Peruvian archaeology and ended up being a crucial link in between U.S. and Peruvian archaeologists. Over years, he alleviated the method for U.S. archaeologists desiring licenses to operate in Peru, and for young Peruvian archaeologists thinking about studying in the United States. He directs an essential and long term excavation and PUCP field school at San José del Moro. (The field school is not presently active due to the fact that of the coronavirus pandemic.) Many of the problems versus him include occurrences that that presumably occurred at the field school. Castillo Butters likewise functioned as Peru’s vice minister of culture from 2013 to 2015, and as minister of culture from July to September 2019.

Castillo Butters stated his letter to McNutt, which he offered to ScienceInsider, constituted his appeal versus his impending ouster. He initially discovered the academy was preparing to expel him 2 months earlier, he states. In the letter, he called Balter a “notorious blogger.” Last year, quickly prior to Balter’s piece was released, Castillo Butters tweeted a letter that his legal representative had actually sent out to Balter starting character assassination procedures. Castillo Butters’s legal representative has actually likewise sent out stop and desist letters to 4 Peruvian archaeologists who grumbled or retweeted problems about his supposed habits on social networks.

For Pilar Margarita Hernández Escontrías, a Ph.D. anthropologist and an appellate defense lawyer practicing in Los Angeles who dealt with Castillo Butters at San Jose de Moro in 2010 and 2011, the news of his ouster was a welcome event to “find joy in [a] rare moment of institutional accountability.” But she states “real justice and healing” will come just when the “whole Andean archaeological community” acknowledges the function that she states members played in safeguarding and making it possible for Castillo Butters for several years—typically, in the interest of their own expert development.

New post published on: https://livescience.tech/2021/10/18/leading-peruvian-archaeologist-ousted-by-u-s-national-academy-of-sciences-science/

[orbemnews]

Biden to Elevate Science Adviser to His Cupboard President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. introduced on Friday that he’ll elevate the function of science in his cupboard as a part of an effort to “refresh and reinvigorate our nationwide science and know-how technique.” Mr. Biden will nominate Eric S. Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, to function director of the Workplace of Science and Expertise Coverage, and in addition appoint him to function presidential science adviser. For the primary time, the place shall be elevated to the cupboard stage. The appointments sign a drastic change from the function of science within the Trump administration. President Trump left the place of science adviser empty for 18 months, whereas his administration routinely ignored the steerage of presidency scientists on points together with the coronavirus pandemic, chemical air pollution and local weather change. Mr. Biden has made different White Home appointments that might elevate the significance of science in decision-making, corresponding to naming John Kerry, the previous secretary of state and a Democratic senator, a particular presidential envoy on local weather change, and creating a brand new White Home Workplace of Local weather Coverage led by Gina McCarthy, who served because the administrator of the Environmental Safety Company beneath President Barack Obama. “Eric Lander is a real Renaissance scientist in his broad grasp of the numerous fields of science and their interrelationships,” mentioned Marcia McNutt, president of the Nationwide Academy of Sciences. “At a time when the nation and the world face complicated challenges that may require harnessing the complete energy of bodily, life, environmental, social, biomedical and engineering sciences, Eric is an impressed alternative of a scientist of worldwide stature to make sure that science guides sound coverage.” In Friday’s announcement, Mr. Biden additionally introduced that Alondra Nelson, a professor on the Institute for Superior Research in Princeton, N.J., and president of the Social Science Analysis Council in Washington, D.C., will function deputy director for the Workplace of Science and Expertise Coverage. Frances H. Arnold and Maria Zuber will function the exterior co-chairs of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Expertise, a council of distinguished eminent volunteer consultants from outdoors the federal authorities. Dr. Arnold, a protein scientist at Caltech, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018, solely the fifth lady to take action. Dr. Zuber, vice chairman for analysis at M.I.T., was the primary lady to steer a NASA spacecraft mission. “Science will all the time be on the forefront of my administration — and these world-renowned scientists will guarantee every thing we do is grounded in science, info and the reality,” Mr. Biden mentioned in his announcement. “Their trusted steerage shall be important as we come collectively to finish this pandemic, convey our economic system again and pursue new breakthroughs to enhance the standard of lifetime of all Individuals. Their insights will assist America chart a brighter future, and I’m grateful they answered the decision to serve.” In 2018, Mr. Trump appointed Kelvin Droegemeier, then vice chairman for analysis on the College of Oklahoma, as his director for the Workplace of Science and Expertise Coverage. Though Dr. Droegemeier is well-respected for his analysis on climate, many scientists felt that he was unable to persuade Mr. Trump to get behind a lot significant enchancment in American science. “I give him an A for effort, and an F for efficiency,” a science coverage skilled mentioned of Dr. Droegemeier to Science Journal in October. Whereas protecting a low profile throughout his two years on the White Home, Dr. Droegemeier made headlines in January. He expelled two employees members after they printed local weather denialist brochures with a White Home emblem. Mr. Trump left the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Expertise idle for 33 months. When he reconstituted it in 2019, solely considered one of his appointees was an educational scientist, with representatives of personal business filling out the council. Dr. Lander, the nominee for science adviser, is finest recognized as one of many leaders of the Human Genome Venture. With a doctorate in arithmetic, he created elegant strategies to sift via genetic information to map genes and uncover their features and roles in illnesses. Dr. Lander went on to ascertain the Broad Institute, which turned a number one middle of analysis on sequencing genomes. Broad researchers additionally did a number of the pioneering work on CRISPR, the know-how for modifying DNA. Dr. Lander beforehand served as a co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s science advisory council. “Our nation stands on the most consequential second for science and know-how since World Conflict II,” Dr. Lander mentioned in a information launch from the Broad Institute. “How we reply will form our future for the remainder of this century. President-elect Biden understands the central function of science and know-how, and I’m deeply honored to have the prospect to serve the nation.” In a letter to Dr. Lander that Mr. Biden launched on Friday, the president-elect recalled how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had requested his science adviser, Vannevar Bush, a collection of questions on how science may gain advantage america. Mr. Biden introduced his personal queries to Dr. Lander about bettering public well being, local weather change, know-how and making certain that the advantages of science are totally shared by all Individuals. “I stay up for receiving your suggestions — and to working with you, your staff, and the broader scientific group to show them into options that ease on a regular basis burdens for the American individuals, spark new jobs and alternatives, and restore American management on the world stage,” Mr. Biden wrote. Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will introduce Dr. Lander, Dr. Nelson, Dr. Arnold and Dr. Zuber at a dwell occasion at 1:30 p.m. Japanese time on Saturday in Wilmington, Del. Supply hyperlink #adviser #Biden #cabinet #Elevate #Science

[sub-at-omicsteminist]

•🌜Women in stem🌛•

✨ Ancient history ✨

Hypatia

Hatshepsut

Tapputi-Belatekallim

Theano

Aglaonice

Fang

Mary the Jewess

Pandrosion

Cleopatra the alchemist

✨The Middle Ages✨

Al- ‘Ijliyyah

Dobrodeia of Kiev

Trota of Salerno

Adelle of the Saracens

Hildegard of Bingen

Herrad of Landsberg

Zulema L'Astròloga

Adelmota of Carrara

Keng Hsien-Seng

✨16th Century✨

Isabella Cortese

Loredana Marcello

Sophia Brahe

Caterina Vitale

✨17th Century✨

Louise Boursier

Martine Bertereau

Maria Cunitz

Marie Meurdrac

Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Marguerite de la Sablière

Jeanne Dumée

Elisabeth Hevelius

Maria Clara Eimmart

Maria Sibylla Merian

✨18th Century✨

Eleanor Glanville

Maria Margaretha Kirch

Catherine Jérémie

Laura Bassi

Emilie du Châtelet

Eva Ekeblad

Cristina Roccati

Jane Colden

Anna Morandi Manzolini

Wang Zhenyi

Caroline Herschel

Nicole-Reine Lepaute

Geneviève Thiroux d'Arconville

Elizabeth Fulhame

✨Early 19th Century✨

Sophie Germain

Anna Sundström

Sabina Baldoncelli

Lady Hester Stanhope

Mary Anning

Elisabetta Fiorini Mazzanti

Marie-Anne Libert

Jeanne Villepreux-Power

Orra White Hitchcock

✨Late 19th Century✨

Henrietta Vansittart

✨Early 20th Century✨

Hertha Ayrton

Katherine Parsons

Emmy Noether

Lise Meitner

Marjorie Lee Browne

Dorothy Vaughan

✨Late 20th Century✨

Jocelyn Bell Burnell

Katherine Johnson

Mae Jemison

Valentina Tereshkova

Valerie Thomas

Sally Ride

Lynn Conway

✨21st Century✨

Maryam Mirzakhani

Carolyn Bertozzi

Andrea M. Ghez

Jennifer Doudna

Shirley Ann Jackson

Donna Strickland

Frances Arnold

Karen Uhlenbeck

Jennifer Doudna

Marcia McNutt

Maureen Raymo

[multipleservicelisting]

Biden to Elevate Science Adviser to His Cabinet

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced on Friday that he will elevate the role of science in his cabinet as part of an effort to “refresh and reinvigorate our national science and technology strategy.”

Mr. Biden will nominate Eric S. Lander, the director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, to serve as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and also appoint him to serve as presidential science adviser. For the first time, the position will be elevated to the cabinet level.

The appointments signal a drastic switch from the role of science in the Trump administration. President Trump left the position of science adviser empty for 18 months, while his administration routinely ignored the guidance of government scientists on issues including the coronavirus pandemic, chemical pollution and climate change.

Mr. Biden has made other White House appointments that could elevate the importance of science in decision-making, such as naming John Kerry, the former secretary of state and a Democratic senator, a special presidential envoy on climate change, and creating a new White House Office of Climate Policy led by Gina McCarthy, who served as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Barack Obama.

“Eric Lander is a true Renaissance scientist in his broad grasp of the many fields of science and their interrelationships,” said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “At a time when the nation and the world face complex challenges that will require harnessing the full power of physical, life, environmental, social, biomedical and engineering sciences, Eric is an inspired choice of a scientist of international stature to ensure that science guides sound policy.”

In Friday’s announcement, Mr. Biden also announced that Alondra Nelson, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and president of the Social Science Research Council in Washington, D.C., will serve as deputy director for the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Frances H. Arnold and Maria Zuber will serve as the external co-chairs of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, a council of prominent eminent volunteer experts from outside the federal government. Dr. Arnold, a protein scientist at Caltech, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018, only the fifth woman to do so. Dr. Zuber, vice president for research at M.I.T., was the first woman to lead a NASA spacecraft mission.

“Science will always be at the forefront of my administration — and these world-renowned scientists will ensure everything we do is grounded in science, facts and the truth,” Mr. Biden said in his announcement. “Their trusted guidance will be essential as we come together to end this pandemic, bring our economy back and pursue new breakthroughs to improve the quality of life of all Americans. Their insights will help America chart a brighter future, and I am grateful they answered the call to serve.”

In 2018, Mr. Trump appointed Kelvin Droegemeier, then vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma, as his director for the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Although Dr. Droegemeier is well-respected for his research on weather, many scientists felt that he was unable to convince Mr. Trump to get behind much meaningful improvement in American science.

“I give him an A for effort, and an F for performance,” a science policy expert said of Dr. Droegemeier to Science Magazine in October.

While keeping a low profile during his two years at the White House, Dr. Droegemeier made headlines in January. He expelled two staff members after they published climate denialist brochures with a White House logo.

Mr. Trump left the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology idle for 33 months. When he reconstituted it in 2019, only one of his appointees was an academic scientist, with representatives of private industry filling out the council.

Dr. Lander, the nominee for science adviser, is best known as one of the leaders of the Human Genome Project. With a doctorate in mathematics, he created elegant methods to sift through genetic data to map genes and discover their functions and roles in diseases.

Dr. Lander went on to establish the Broad Institute, which became a leading center of research on sequencing genomes. Broad researchers also did some of the pioneering work on CRISPR, the technology for editing DNA. Dr. Lander previously served as a co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s science advisory council.

“Our country stands at the most consequential moment for science and technology since World War II,” Dr. Lander said in a news release from the Broad Institute. “How we respond will shape our future for the rest of this century. President-elect Biden understands the central role of science and technology, and I am deeply honored to have the chance to serve the nation.”

In a letter to Dr. Lander that Mr. Biden released on Friday, the president-elect recalled how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had asked his science adviser, Vannevar Bush, a series of questions about how science could benefit the United States. Mr. Biden presented his own queries to Dr. Lander about improving public health, climate change, technology and ensuring that the benefits of science are fully shared by all Americans.

“I look forward to receiving your recommendations — and to working with you, your team, and the broader scientific community to turn them into solutions that ease everyday burdens for the American people, spark new jobs and opportunities, and restore American leadership on the world stage,” Mr. Biden wrote.

Mr. Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will introduce Dr. Lander, Dr. Nelson, Dr. Arnold and Dr. Zuber at a live event at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time on Saturday in Wilmington, Del.

    Multiple Service Listing for Business Owners | Tools to Grow Your Local Business

www.MultipleServiceListing.com 

The post Biden to Elevate Science Adviser to His Cabinet appeared first on Multiple Service Listing.

from Multiple Service Listing https://ift.tt/3igoK4I

[psycheapuleius]

“Ending the pandemic will require decision-making that is not only based on science but also sufficiently transparent to ensure public trust in, and adherence to, sound public-health instructions. Any efforts to discredit the best science and scientists threaten the health and welfare of us all.”

— Marcia McNutt, NAS President, and Victor Dzau, NAM President.

The statement by the leaders of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine came one day after President Donald Trump suggested that he might reject an FDA proposal to raise standards for emergency use of any coronavirus vaccine.

[techbotic]

Amid rampant sexual harassment in science, academies aren’t ejecting abusers

Enlarge / High-angle photograph of a woman scientist holding an electrophoresis plate for DNA separation over the UVP imaging System. (credit: Getty | CDC)

Sexual harassment is widespread within the scientific community, and policies and institutional safeguards to address the problem are more effective at reducing liability than protecting members and changing harmful work cultures, according to a long-awaited report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The report, released Tuesday, June 12, is two years in the making. In an opening statement broadcast at the report’s public release today in Washington, DC, Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, called it a “landmark” study arriving at the “right moment” amid the international Me Too movement against sexual harassment and assault. Yet the academies own policies regarding harassers within its ranks may highlight the challenges ahead for effecting change.

The extensive report outlines the grim scope of sexual harassment in the academic sciences, engineering, and medical fields, as well as numerous recommendations for prevention. Reviews of scientific analyses and surveys revealed that more than 50 percent of women faculty and staff and 20-50 percent of women students in the three fields had encountered or experienced sexual harassment. These rates are higher than in other sectors, including industry and government jobs. Academic positions were second only to the military, which had a sexual harassment rate of 69 percent.

Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Amid rampant sexual harassment in science, academies aren’t ejecting abusers published first on https://medium.com/@CPUCHamp

[t9u8u1m7-blog]

What I Told My Daughter: Lessons from Leaders on Raising the Next Generation of Empowered Women Free Download Books On Tape

Get now >> What I Told My Daughter: Lessons from Leaders on Raising the Next Generation of Empowered Women Free Download Books On Tape

What I Told My Daughter: Lessons from Leaders on Raising the Next Generation of Empowered Women Free Download Books On Tape

In What I Told My Daughter, entertainment executive Nina Tassler has brought together a powerful, diverse group of women-from Madeleine Albright to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from Dr. Susan Love to Whoopi Goldberg-to reflect on the best advice and counsel they have given their daughters either by example, throughout their lives, or in character-building, teachable moments between parent and child. A college president teaches her daughter, by example, the importance of being a leader who connects with everyone-from the ground up, literally-in an organization. A popular entertainer and former child star urges her daughter to walk in her own truth, to not break glass ceilings if she yearns to nurture a family as a stay-at-home mother or to abandon a career if that's her calling. One of the country's only female police chiefs teaches her daughter the meaning of courage, how to respond to danger but more importantly how not to let fear stop her from experiencing all that life has to offer. A bestselling writer who has deliberated for years on empowering girls, wonders if we're unintentionally leading them to believe they can never make mistakes, when "resiliency is more important than perfection." Contributors include: Geena Davis, Cecile Richards, Dolores Huerta, Rabbi Sharon Brous, Peggy Orenstein, Debora Black, Ayelet Waldman, Pat Benatar, Whoopi Goldberg, Dr. Susan Love, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandra Pelosi, Marie Osmond, Dr. Juliet Garcia, Jehan Sadat, Ph.D, Joanna Kerns, Madeleine Albright, Gloria Estefan, Nannerl O. Keohane, Jennifer Dulski, Dr. Marcia McNutt, Pamela Fryman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Brooke Shields, Laura Bush, Mona Sinha, Gloria Allred, Joy Marcus, Judy Vredenburgh, Sharon Osbourne, Beverly Johnson, Michelle King, Dr. Karen Antman, MD, Dr. Amy Antman Gelfand, MD, Mary Steenburgen, Kimberley Hatchett, Cheryl Saban, C. Noel Bairey Merz, Alex Guarneschelli, Dana Walden, Mia Hamm, Margaret Abe-Koga, Roma Downey, Chirlane McCray, Blythe Danner, Sheila Bair, Ruth W. Messinger, Norah O'Donnell, Donna de Varona, Nancy Josephson, Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, Jeanne Newman, and Christine Baranski. In a time when childhood seems at once more fraught and more precious than ever, What I Told My Daughter is a book no one concerned with connecting with a young girl can afford to miss. What I Told My Daughter: Lessons from Leaders on Raising the Next Generation of Empowered Women Free Download Books On Tape