Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nature)   The Science Sheilas are not happy the Boffin Bruces received an outsize share of Australian medical-research funding and are ready to kick their bums at knifey-spooney to set things straight   (nature.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Gender, Medical research, National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia's largest grant-award programme, Male, Female, greater share of medical-research funding, NHMRC's investigator grants  
•       •       •

488 clicks; posted to STEM » on 28 Nov 2021 at 11:45 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



11 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-11-28 11:51:57 AM  
Boy it would have been helpful to know WHAT the grants were awarded for. That would probably give us a lot of important context


Wonder why such important contextual information was left out
 
2021-11-28 11:57:40 AM  
Talk to the bond wizard by the malonga gilderchuck?

/america... australia... america... australia... amer
 
2021-11-28 12:00:48 PM  

lifeslammer: Boy it would have been helpful to know WHAT the grants were awarded for. That would probably give us a lot of important context


Wonder why such important contextual information was left out


Wow what a sexist jerk you must be.
Do you not understand that nothing else mattes?
The only way we know we have equality, is if we can visually observe it.

Like a college campus admissions,. we want to see a wide range of skin colors and sexual organs, but the fook we  are no looking for poor people here, nor do we need anyone that has their own ideas.
Equality is a status most easily measured superficially, and so that's the point.

Besides we've learned that any "merits" can be faked or gamed, so why bother wiht that? Let's all just go with all of reality is WISYWIG, so that even a 5 year old can judge these matters.


See, as long as the context is the WISYWIG, then life is just so much easier. Come on, hop on the cart, it's a real ease of burden to not have to think any more but just know morality is achievable from little more than visual inspection alone.
And it was was this easy this whole time.
 
2021-11-28 12:56:19 PM  

PvtStash: we want to see a wide range of......sexual organs,


Yes
 
2021-11-28 1:46:28 PM  
Science is already broken in Australia since over 2/3rds of all scientific funding comes from government, and the current government doesn't really like science. So the pot has been ever shrinking and throw in some of your garden variety biases and preferences to funding people who already have funding and you've got the current situation.

I know a ton of Aussies who fled the country because of this, brain drain is a serious problem there and it's a deep hole to get out of.
 
2021-11-28 2:28:33 PM  
Chazzwazzer.
 
2021-11-28 5:19:13 PM  

lifeslammer: Boy it would have been helpful to know WHAT the grants were awarded for. That would probably give us a lot of important context


Wonder why such important contextual information was left out


The CRT disease has metastasized to the STEM fields, so asking for evidence to support an accusation of sexism is now considered an admission of guilt.
 
2021-11-28 8:16:57 PM  

State_College_Arsonist: The CRT disease has metastasized to the STEM fields, so asking for evidence to support an accusation of sexism is now considered an admission of guilt.


You keep on using this word, CRT, I do not think you know what it means.

The fark is up with STEM redpillers working so hard to avoid acknowledging the fact of gender disparities? Somehow, acknowledging that there are disparities and that they ought not be reinforced makes them feel emasculated.
 
2021-11-28 9:28:05 PM  

lifeslammer: Boy it would have been helpful to know WHAT the grants were awarded for. That would probably give us a lot of important context


Wonder why such important contextual information was left out


It's also interesting to not there where 865 applications by men and 850 by women. It's the implication here the funding should be equal because the applicants are equal?

That close if submission count only makes sense if men are 51% of scientists in Australia. If there are more, this means the number of applicants that are women are over represented. There's a non zero chance this means they are filling more grants... And assuming all of them are unique individuals, it would imply that a chunk of those submitted are from those who are less qualified than their same sex peers.

Knowing what facilities they work at, what they intend to study, and other such things would also be helpful to know.

I'm pro spending more money on science, but that shouldn't mean quotas for who is doing the science, nor for funding less useful studies just to meet quotas.

It's it possible there's a gender bias? Yes. It's the way to fix that quotas? No. It's taking names, genders, etc off of the grant applications before reviewers see them. Let them review grants purely on the merit of the science. Maybe leave key resume bullets, or other pertinent info while obfuscating gender, age, race, etc from the decision makers. If there's still a problem there, a second committee should look into what these underrepresented groups are submitting and why.
 
2021-11-29 4:52:26 AM  

Quantumbunny: lifeslammer: Boy it would have been helpful to know WHAT the grants were awarded for. That would probably give us a lot of important context


Wonder why such important contextual information was left out

It's also interesting to not there where 865 applications by men and 850 by women. It's the implication here the funding should be equal because the applicants are equal?

That close if submission count only makes sense if men are 51% of scientists in Australia. If there are more, this means the number of applicants that are women are over represented. There's a non zero chance this means they are filling more grants... And assuming all of them are unique individuals, it would imply that a chunk of those submitted are from those who are less qualified than their same sex peers.

Knowing what facilities they work at, what they intend to study, and other such things would also be helpful to know.

I'm pro spending more money on science, but that shouldn't mean quotas for who is doing the science, nor for funding less useful studies just to meet quotas.

It's it possible there's a gender bias? Yes. It's the way to fix that quotas? No. It's taking names, genders, etc off of the grant applications before reviewers see them. Let them review grants purely on the merit of the science. Maybe leave key resume bullets, or other pertinent info while obfuscating gender, age, race, etc from the decision makers. If there's still a problem there, a second committee should look into what these underrepresented groups are submitting and why.


Get the fark out of here with your sensible and reasonable suggestion.  Don't you know this is Fark?
 
2021-11-29 4:54:22 AM  

voyageur: State_College_Arsonist: The CRT disease has metastasized to the STEM fields, so asking for evidence to support an accusation of sexism is now considered an admission of guilt.

You keep on using this word, CRT, I do not think you know what it means.

The fark is up with STEM redpillers working so hard to avoid acknowledging the fact of gender disparities? Somehow, acknowledging that there are disparities and that they ought not be reinforced makes them feel emasculated.


I just assume that like fascism and trumper, it's a word that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean, though always in a negative fashion.

Meaning it's shorthand for "I hate this, and you should hate it too, because it's bad".
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.