“Recruit and retain a diverse workforce” https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-0214-z
Why is this (I presume scientific) paper written like an opinion piece?
What will it take to make our undergraduate and graduate researchers, our postdoctoral interview candidates, our faculty and our academic leaders reflect local and global populations — and why should we bother?
It sounds like a Lemmy post
As the world erupts with demands for racial justice, the chemistry community has the obligation, opportunity and momentum to drive for diversity and inclusion in the sciences. Efforts towards that end must begin by allocating opportunities for success on the basis of potential, not privilege, and follow through by soliciting and acting upon feedback from the scholars we have recruited.
Because modern day social scientists have legitimately lost the plot and think it’s more important to for careers to be built by ethnicity rather than merit, and call any alternative a matter of facilitating and furthering “privilege” with no data to back up their claims.
I know people who have been pushed out of labs and bullied into quitting their degree programs just because they were hetero white males. I am unfortunately not kidding, not exaggerating, and the details I am leaving out only make the circumstances worse.
Academics have quietly acknowledged that academia itself is dying because of this and other issues that call the validity of modern science literature into question.
I have a friend who is published in Nature, and I’m very tempted to send them this article. They have already stated that being published in Nature means nothing these days to anyone who actually pays attention to what they publish, and this is just further proof of it.
For all who digress: I welcome all downvotes. I am not trolling, I am not inciting, I am laying out the honest truth as it has been illustrated to me by credible academics over the past five years. I don’t care what you learned in social sciences. I don’t care who published what. You seek to undermine academia by making merit moot and for that I respect you less than I even respect Silicon Valley-- that is to say, dismally little. And idgaf what you label me because if you are on the other side of this, your words mean absolutely nothing to me and never will.
Let me just point this out- this was the exact same argument by many intellectuals back in the 1950’s about segregation/integration and blacks in science. Why should we care about their color? If they are good scientists with great original ideas and experiments, then surely they will get published and get their positions commensurate to their merit. This is also ignoring their segregated schooling being underfunded, not being welcomed into higher ed unless at specific ‘negro’ universities, and the crippled career paths because of it. But sure, even with their second rate primary education due to their skin color, and their second rate secondary education due to their skin color, and then their crippled career prospects due to their skin color- why don’t we then measure them on merit? The black man never amounted to what out nice ivy league educated white man has done, so why take a risk on them? And again, should we not just judge them on merit? Ignore that if a black man has a novel idea then they must then have the idea reviewed into perpetuity while one of the white reviewers just so happens to come up with the same idea then publishes before the black man.
So to sit here and still argue that merit alone while disregarding the person is only progress is actually quite regressive.
Now, beyond that- modern publishing is blind in most every respectable journal because of this issue. It is only after being accepted is the author identity revealed to the reviewers.
yes, dispense upon us your second-hand, bitter expertise. i’m certain you have the Truth, the Facts, and the Data.
Add a citation counter below it to keep track of how far you’ve come.
Citations: ||||| ||||/ ||||| ||||\ ||||| |||
QR code for the DOI would be better IMO
Might be obsolete after a bit though. A QR code only points to a URL and that might change (unlikely, but after 20 years…)
QR codes can contain just about anything, including the URI (doi:foobar) form that the tattoo uses. QR codes themselves will probably go the way of USB: In a million years there’s going to be someone looking at the driver code saying “you sure we can’t get rid of those early versions” just for someone to chime in saying “your keyboard still uses USB1”.
A QR code can also just contain plain text. It’s just usually used for URLs.
You can make QR codes that copy text to a clipboard right? Can’t you just make it a DOI search term? Or pay $2/yr for a redirect domain that you can point to where you want later
Sure, but that $2/yr company goes out of business after 10 years and the QR code stops working.
I guess making the number just copy into your clipboard would be a decent option, but you can also just copy/paste text from images now, so why go through the trouble of QR coding it when that only makes sense to a computer?
A QR Code encodes a string of text. In can be a URL, or anything else. Like the DOI string above, a quote, or whatever. You can’t do full Unicode I think, it’s 8859-1, or something like that, although there’s also an Asian variant.
But your camera phone can already copy text. If it’s a tattoo about the first paper you wrote, whatever you make needs to work for 60+ years. Text is always going to be valid, who knows when QR codes will become obsolete. 60 years ago you’d be getting a tattoo of a punch card, and that would be mostly meaningless today.
Not only the first paper but it apparently was published in nature:
Good for her, well done! Not as pretty of a tattoo as a well-drawn organic molecule, IMO, but publishing is hard and worthy of celebration when you succeed.
