First, there was the case of Michael LaCour--a "rising star" in the world of social scientists--who, as a graduate student at UCLA, co-published an "electrifying" paper. So electrifying, in fact, that contrary to conventional wisdom, LaCour and his co-author found that "people’s long-established views can be changed quite easily through a brief encounter with a sympathetic figure arguing the opposite."
Canvassers were said to have gone door to door speaking with neighborhood residents about the issue of so-called homosexual "marriage." And, if the findings are to be believed, speaking with a homosexual person about the desire to marry has a significant and lasting impact upon the views of people who had previously claimed not to support so-called homosexual "marriage." Furthermore, this shift impacts other residents of the same household who weren't present for the original conversation.
The "take away"? Get homosexuals to speak with other people who are open to or even opposed to the idea of so-called homosexual "marriage." In turn, they will become acolytes for prosyletizing others on behalf of the cause.
Science published the paper in December 2014, and as is to be expected, high-brow intellectuals were heaping attention upon LaCour. Princeton University offered him a job. In addition, mainstream news outlets across the nation couldn't get enough interviews. Now, that's a rising star!
However, a doctoral student from UC-Berkeley did his homework and presented damning evidence 2 weeks ago that the LaCour's was fraudulent.
"Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted," the journal's website instructs reviewers, "and the peer review process is a vital part of that system."
Sure looks like someone over at Science allowed ideology to trump science once again.
The second case concerns a column written by Alice S. Huang, the 74-year-old senior faculty associate in biology at California Institute of Technology known for her pioneering research in molecular animal virology, and a regular advice columnist for Science. Inside Higher Ed reports that Huang's recent columan got yanked by the editor of Science for what some called a "one step forward, two steps back" path to gender equity in the sciences.
Huang--who also happens to be a former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the publisher of Science)--received this letter:
I just joined a new lab for my second postdoc. It’s a good lab. I’m happy
with my project. I think it could really lead to some good results. My adviser
is a good scientist, and he seems like a nice guy. Here’s the problem:
whenever we meet in his office, I catch him trying to look down my shirt.
Not that this matters, but he’s married. What should I do?
Imagine what life would be like if there were no individuals of the opposite
--or preferred--sex. It would be pretty dull, eh? Well, like it or not, the
workplace is a part of life.
It’s true that, in principle, we’re all supposed to be asexual while working.
But the kind of behavior you mention is common in the workplace. Once,
a friend told me that he was so distracted by an attractive visiting professor
that he could not concentrate on a word of her seminar. Your adviser may
not even be aware of what he is doing.
Some definitions of sexual harassment do include inappropriate looking
or staring, especially when it’s repeated to the point where the workplace
becomes inhospitable. Has it reached that point? I don’t mean to suggest
that leering is appropriate workplace behavior--it isn’t--but it is human
and up to a point, I think, forgivable. Certainly there are worse things,
including the unlawful behaviors described by the [Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission]. No one should ever use a position of authority
to take sexual advantage of another.
As long as your adviser does not move on to other advances, I suggest
you put up with it, with good humor if you can. Just make sure that he is
listening to you and your ideas, taking in the results you are presenting,
and taking your science seriously. His attention on your chest may be
unwelcome, but you need his attention on your science and his best advice.
It didn't take long--2 hours, in fact--before the stormy petrels got the editors at Science to delete Huang's advice. However, that wasn't good enough for the P.C. Police. A couple of hours later, an Editor’s Note appeared explaining the column's deletion. The note stated that Science "regretted" that Huang's article had not undergone "proper editorial review prior to posting" and that women "in science, or any other field, should never be expected to tolerate unwanted sexual attention in the workplace."
A second failure of "proper editorial review" over at Science. Just what's going on in the Editor's office?
Let the discussion begin...
To read about LaCour's ongoing battle, click on the following link:
To read the Inside Higher Ed report, click on the following link: