MIT prof begins hunger strike over tenure

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070206/us_nm/mit_protest_dc ^

[Muentzer2005]

James Sherley, a biological engineer whose opposition to embryonic stem cell research has been controversial among his peers, charges he has been denied the same freedom to challenge scientific orthodoxy afforded his white colleagues.

[LtdGovt]

Oh, I understood you clearly.

No, you didn't, and you continued to prove that you did not understand anything I wrote. I don't know, maybe outrage about what you thought I wrote, blinded you from what I really wrote, namely, that my argument was mainly about effectiveness.

You don't think it is appropriate for this professor to speak out on the morality of research conducted by his peers. You think he should shut up.

Are you just making stuff up as you go? I meant that this kind of thing is a better fit at the philosophy department, and it's hard to argue with that. He isn't going to persuade anyone at the biological department, since the presumption is always in favor of research, whether it's right or not. It's up to him to bring his case to the American people.

But you're not going to tell me what I said, I thought that I was the arbiter of that. So I hope you now understand what I really meant, and if not, tough luck. Having explained it twice already, I feel that it is enough.

[Kirkwood]

MIT is also being sued by another prof over tenure, but he is accusing MIT of being too conservative and pro-military. Go figure.

I know many conservative profs with tenure. If you are doing really good cutting edge work and bring in money to the university, you will almost certainly get tenure. The university will not want to lose a cash cow.

[Wuli]

You must be right, anyone who thinks EVERY human life is deserving of the recognition of the right to not be murdered, whether as an embryo, in the womb or anywhere else, surely has no business in science. /sarc

When a human embryo is no more than a disposable piece of discardable flotsam, the mature human will descend into the same definition of expendable, worthless disregard in favor of "greater" virtues than its own life.

[Mount Athos]

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

You LtdGovt, want good men to do nothing.

An individual refusing to accomodate evil is a powerful thing. So is someone saying "that just isn't right", having the courage to say it even when it might harm their interests or make others uncomfortable.

It is more powerful than any ivory tower philosphy department.

This professor is a hero for speaking out, for shaming his peers.
You are a morally bankrupt disgrace for telling him to shut up.

[LtdGovt]

You must be right, anyone who thinks EVERY human life is deserving of the recognition of the right to not be murdered, whether as an embryo, in the womb or anywhere else, surely has no business in science.

I wonder, what are the chances that this professor is going to convince his fellow scientists not to do such experiments. I consider that chance to be very small, close to zero. You operate under the false assumption that scientists can be shamed into not conducting experiments. It doesn't work that way. If you want maximum effectiveness, you need to reach out to the court of public opinion, and indirectly, influence legislators.

[LtdGovt]

You LtdGovt, want good men to do nothing.

Indeed, I'm evil. Now go and revel in your infinite self-righteousness.

You are a morally bankrupt disgrace for telling him to shut up.

I feel the same way about you, my friend, for you are less interested in listening (you haven't grasped a word of what I have said) to what others have to say, then in attacking them (unreasonably) to make yourself feel superior and moral.

If you had read a word of what I had typed, you would not come with such accusations. Quite clearly, you have not, and for that, you are what you accuse me of being.

[Wuli]

It is my understanding, from the report, that, while he does object to embryonic stem cell research, his specific protest at the moment is not a protest about that form of research; instead, it is a protest on the basis of his belief that his opportunity for tenure may have been denied because of his embryonic stem cell research objections.

Thus, contrary to your misunderstanding, his protest is not about convincing others not to do such research, but that his work has a scientist should not be shortchanged because of his objections about that research.

Unfortunately today, embryonic stem cell research, like "global warming" has less to do with real science and more to do with politicized scientific orthodoxy, on a level barely distinguishable from a Middle Ages blind faith.

[LtdGovt]

Certainly, but the line that is quoted, is somewhat ambiguous: "challeng[ing] scientific orthodoxy", "opposition to stem cell research". My first comment was my gut reaction to the line that is cited.

You talk about politicized science. I don't think that it's science that is the problem, but rather, the fact that liberals are abusing science for their own purposes. Some time ago, I read that scientists found a way to harvest embryonic stem cells, without destroying embroyos. But I doubt that liberals will find this approach appealing, for two reasons. (1) This can't be used as a wedge issue and (2) it will not affirm the practice of abortion. So it isn't quite as useful as it is when using embryos.

[delacoert]

3 different review committees found that to be the case as well

That really does tell the whole story, but there are always quite a few who seem willing or able to accept it.

What people don't understand is that there are many tiers within the tenure evaluation process. There separate reviews at the department level, college level and university level. There are opportunities for external review, and multiple opportunities to appeal a decision. Not to mention that in the years prior to and during application for tenure there are opportunities to change universities and turn the tenure clock back a tick or two.

Additionally, subsequent to failure to obtain tenure there are opportunities to move to other institutions or get a job outside academia.

It amazes me how easily people become convinced of complete unfairness and bias within the tenure evaluation process. People will read the complaint of one poor little conservative who has been denied tenure supposedly on the capricious whim of their colleagues and never question the conduct of the victim. A hunger strike is ridiculous - sounds like it's good to be rid of him.

[Muentzer2005]

"That really does tell the whole story, but there are always quite a few who seem willing or able to accept it."

Like Noam Chomsky?

[blam]

"What does his race have to do with this issue. If you are being unfairly treated because your views are unpopular with your peers, you have my full support. If you are pulling a race card to get attention, shut up."

I agree 100%. It'll devolve into a racial issue though.

[delacoert]

Like Noam Chomsky?

No.

I'm think if we wanted to we might be able to come up with one or two reasons why Chomsky might choose to stick his nose in where it doesn't belong.

[Cinnamon Girl]

It could be racial. White liberals are the biggest racists around. Affirmative Action has created the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and set the stage for peers to assume that a black person is there because of quotas and not because of proven talent in a particular field.

[delacoert]

I'm I

[Wuli]

"I read that scientists found a way to harvest embryonic stem cells, without destroying embroyos. But I doubt that liberals will find this approach appealing, for two reasons. (1) This can't be used as a wedge issue and (2) it will not affirm the practice of abortion. So it isn't quite as useful as it is when using embryos."

Most of the LameStreamMedia minimized, or ignored, or suppressed the news and some liberals actually expressed the exact concern you thought they might - it could be used as another peg in the assault against abortion.

[SEAdub]

"There are lots of non-whites with tenure at MIT."
Actually that is false. Only 4% of tenured faculty at MIT are non-white. That is all minorities combined. 4% is not "lots".

[george76]