Trust is earned. Trust is given. Trust is fragile. Trust is broken. Trust is earned.
My thoughts on recent events in the Science Online community and Joe Hanson's video.
Over the last few weeks, I’ve experienced emotions ranging
from rage to disbelief to disappointment. Today, I experienced a new emotion: fear.
This emotional roller coaster seems to be the new norm for
members of one particularly small community of human beings, to which I happen
to be a longstanding member.
This group consists of people all who profess a desire to
improve the world, largely by sharing the splendor and wonder of science. I refer to this group as the “Science
Online” community, and I’d say that we are currently in a state of crisis.
A crisis of trust.
You see, in recent weeks, we have witnessed one of our own verbally assaulted by an anonymous blog editor, who used a most vile word to attack our
beloved Danielle Lee. This
incident drove me into a state of rage.
Who was this person? Why did they think they could be so cruel to a
member of my community?
I spent more than an hour Googling the trace information we
had to identify this person. I
wanted to identify him or her and demand that they be fired, immediately. Fortunately, within a short period, we
were informed that he was, indeed, relieved of his job.
Editors at Scientific American, where Lee authors a blog,
however, compounded the pain of the episode by pulling Lee’s blog post response
to the offender from their website.
They eventually provided a reasonable sounding justification involving
some legal mumbo jumbo, but the issue had already caught fire.
Many within the community were not only angered by the
misogynistic statement against Lee.
Now, they were angry that Lee’s voice, as a woman, was being censored. It felt as though the offender’s point
of view was being protected while Lee’s right to respond was being denied. It echoed too many cases in which
violated women had been silenced by the “system.” I, too, was angered. I felt Lee deserved the right to speak out and she
deserved the protection of her sponsoring agencies.
This issue continues to have ripple effects in the
community, but it was just one of the first to recently ignite a movement to
speak out on women’s issues in science.
Issues that deserve attention and demand action.
Sadly, Lee’s experience was somewhat drowned out by a
similarly disturbing series of revelations that hit much closer to home. Bora Zivkovic, a pioneer of the Science
Online community and founder of the ScienceOnline organization, was implicated
in numerous cases of sexual harassment against women within the community. His
positions of authority magnified the impact of these cases, such that he lost both his posts.
Zivkovic was considered a trusted leader within the
community. He was known for going
to great strides to promote the work of women science communicators by offering
them roles at conferences and providing writing opportunities. How could he?!
On hearing of the accusations, I first found myself in a
state of disbelief. But as the
stories accumulated and became more graphic, I soon reached a state of
disappointment, nearing on despair.
I worried about the women in the community. I worried about the sustainability of the community under such severe
degradation of trust. How could women in our community ever trust anyone?
How could acts of generosity ever be perceived as genuine? How would we gain back the trust?
This violation of trust compounded the need for women to be
more vocal about abuse in the science community. Thankfully, Karen James started a Twitter hashtag for
community members, women and men, to share their stories of abuse and
maltreatment. This became part of
the healing process. The community
engaged in one of the most brutally honest and healthy discussions of sexual
harassment I’ve ever seen. It was
a high point and the media described the dialogue as healthy and constructive,
an example to others.
Since then things have taken a disturbing turn for the
worse.
Questionable accusations of sexual harassment have emerged. A sense of indignation took root and
the concept of reasonable engagement on women’s issues appeared to drift away.
An expectation of immediate correction was instituted. Change must happen, but change
only comes with sustained effort, as evidenced by pretty much every social
justice movement in history.
Accusations of discrimination were even pointed in my
direction, based on a single ill-advised Tweet. One tweet (that I now regret and apologize for) triggered a
tsunami of anger, attacks, taunts, and accusations against me.
Despite many years of speaking out on women’s issues in
science, despite being an ardent supporter of women science communicators,
despite being a father to two young girls for whom it is one of my supreme
goals to create a more gender balanced science community, despite these things
and many other examples of my attempts to be an ally to the community of women
science communicators, I was now facing down the barrel of a gun determined to
make an example out of me.
The anger I felt against Danielle Lee’s attacker was now
targeted directly at me. I
panicked. Others panicked for me. I received back channel messages of
support. Women and men from the community were telling me that what was being
said wasn’t fair and they wished me well.
“How could this be happening to me? I’m an ally!” I thought.
It didn’t matter.
It was happening and there was nothing I could do about it. I had to rely on those who knew
me. I had to hope that my
reputation in the community would protect me.
I was saved by Carl Sagan.
It just so happened that an article by Erin Podolak about
Carl Sagan and the lack of influence he had on her as a science communicator took
over the conversation. Suddenly,
Twitter erupted in a discussion about whether Sagan should be treated as a
“hero” of science communication.
The disintegration of trust had bled into nearly every
online conversation. The
criticisms of Sagan maintained the undertones of discrimination against women,
despite the fact that he was known for advancing women and minorities in
science and science communication, as evidenced by
Carolyn Porco
and Neil Degrasse-Tyson.
Simultaneously, Joe Hanson’s Thanksgiving Special video was
released. Hanson’s attempt at
humor proved to be an extreme example of poor timing and poor judgment. Even the most measured and levelheaded
members of the community harshly criticized Hanson’s portrayal of Albert
Einstein as a sexual harasser against Marie Curie.
Clearly, the content of the video offended a significant number
of people. At this point, it has
officially reached the level of epic science communication fails. Hanson has acknowledged this and offered
his apology, although some have chosen not to accept it. Again, the trust remains broken.
What is currently happening in the Science Online community,
in my opinion, goes beyond the pale.
The actions of the community in response to Hanson’s video scare
me. It’s as though we’ve lost our
decency. I won’t repeat here the
words that are being used in the discussions.
Initial statements of shock at the insensitivity of Hanson’s
video have escalated into personal attacks, calls for his firing and even threats of violence against him. I’m here
to ask people to reassess their response to this huge screw up.
Here’s why I’d like to encourage folks to rethink this
situation.
First, it cannot be stated enough. We must fight to eliminate sexual discrimination. We must
demand an end to sexual harassment.
We must hold anyone who commits these acts fully accountable. Hanson
exercised poor judgment, but he is neither guilty of discrimination nor
harassment. If anyone can claim
perfect judgment, let he or she be the one to judge Hanson. Otherwise, we must
put this error into perspective and move forward with solutions, not
destruction.
Second, I’d like to say that it’s always been my
understanding that we are a community of experimenters. Not only do many of us experiment in
science, but we also experiment with communications. We see the entire spectrum of writing quality, video
production quality, animation quality and, yes, varying degrees of humor. Much of it needs a great deal of
help. We should be able to say
that. Some folks provide
constructive criticism via social media, some as editors, some through emails
and direct messages.
Many times the comments are less accommodating than others. It’s all part of this huge undertaking
of building capacity to deliver science to the broader public. Indeed, in this case, some have
followed the traditional route of expressing disbelief and disapproval of the absurdity
of Hanson’s video. Others have
gone beyond.
We have always encouraged and appreciated entrepreneurship
in science communication. As is
true for business entrepreneurs, we should know that this means we cultivate a
culture of failure. It is only
through failure that we can learn what works. Sometimes those failures are more painful than others. In this case, it’s incredibly
painful. And yet, there are mixed
responses. Some actually saw the
humor in the video and publicly said so.
Despite this, Hanson’s attempt at humor was a disaster in the eyes of a too
many. He shouldn’t be crucified for
it, though. We should acknowledge
the error and work to correct it. It's time we try to rebuild the trust that has so badly eroded in recent weeks.
Third, regarding calls for Hanson’s firing from PBS Digital
Studios, I think we have yet to see the follow-through on this. There is room for learning. Hanson has worked incredibly hard for
several years to create an identity that has proven to inspire young people. He has thousands of loyal readers who
share his work thousands of times daily on Tumblr, Facebook and Twitter. He has championed women’s causes. Just the week prior to the release of
the infamous video, he railed against discriminatory practices among the Nobel
Prize selection committees. He is
a force for good in a sea of apathy and ignorance. Without a doubt, he is an asset to science and science
communication. In my opinion, any
mention of removing him from his contract with PBS is shortsighted and reflects
misdirected anger. He deserves the
opportunity to recalibrate and power on in the name of science.
Finally, I want to personally speak to the man who is Joe
Hanson. I’ve known Joe for nearly
eight years now. Joe and I worked
together in the same lab at the University of Texas at Austin. When Joe arrived in the lab, he
immediately contributed intellectually.
Joe was placed on a project very similar to mine. Even as I was a senior graduate student
at the time, he challenged me to up my game. He was one of the most professional graduate students I’ve
ever known. He made me a better
scientist.
Throughout grad school, Joe and I served on several student
committees together. We launched
two organizations on campus to promote science. He shared my expectation that fairness and diversity be
reflected in all our ventures. As
we discovered the world of science communication, it was immediately clear to
me that he intended to continue to promote not just gender equality but
equality on all fronts.
I set out on the science policy path confronting bad science
policy and pseudoscience. Joe took
a more even keeled approach. He
decided he wanted to inspire young people to love science. He did his research and determined that
Tumblr was the best medium to reach his chosen demographic.
The title of his Tumblr blog (It’s Okay to be Smart) is
telling. He knew there were young
people out there with doubts about whether it’s cool to be nerdy and care
about being smart. He created a
safe place for them to explore science and ask those sometimes-embarrassing
questions, like “My grades aren’t that great. Should I become a scientist?”
One of the earliest projects Joe undertook was to inspire
his niece to maintain her interest in science. He called it “Project Niece” and he invited women
scientists to submit their stories to provide examples for her to follow. Liz Neeley provided an amazing
story. And, Joe sent an article on
dolphins his niece had written to Jason Goldman to publish on his blog. This is the example, not the exception,
for Joe.
You know, Joe is just someone you want to know. Among his wild college friends, he was
the cool and collected leader. Joe
married his college sweetheart and they are a disgustingly lovely couple. They are pillars of the community and
represent the values we’d all like to see in our friends and family. Obviously, these things cannot be known through our online personalities. In this case, it's a real shame.
Recently, Joe came to Washington, DC. I brought him home to meet my young
family including my two daughters.
He’s fantastic with kids.
He dropped a little science on them and before he left for the evening,
he spent time with my oldest daughter discussing the virtues of the various “My
Little Ponies.” For me, that moment will always remain.
I’ll finish with this.
During Joe’s trip to DC, in an informal setting with friends, someone
asked each of us to share the most annoying habit of others. Of those in attendance, I knew Joe the
best. Of all the years we spent
together in the lab, of all the hours outside the lab promoting science
together, I couldn’t think of one bad thing to say.
We've done this before, and we'll probably do it again - in trying to be better than the rest we go too far in our outrage about someone else's human error.
ReplyDeleteWe need to get over ourselves. Any of us could make the kind of mistake Joe did. We need to keep the ability to make jokes about the things we care about
Thanks for your comment, Rosie.
Deletethnx for the information..
ReplyDeleteblog is really gud,Help my india is the World Best Forum and Blogging Site which provides the all category of forum and blogging and Social Community site.
Online Communities