6 ms·
Londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs
- Olesya000 3y ago[dead]
- genman 3y agohttps://www.nature.com/immersive/where-i-work-exhibition/index.html https://www.nature.com/immersive/where-i-work-exhibition/ind...
- neilv 3y agoA long time ago, as a related outreach to promote children aspiring to work in science, the Oregon Graduate Institute made sports-like trading cards of their scientists, to distribute to area children. This project in London might emphasize diversity more, which is great. Not just "Being a scientist is interesting, and conceivably something I could do" (and incidentally it features a diversity of people) -- but more directly going for the reaction of "Someone who looks like me can be a scientist". We still need that. We also still need to follow through on supporting that, once the kids manage to arrive at college, grad school, and the job market.
- KaiserPro 3y agoThe exhibition before that was lots of pictures from the moon landing, which was great. They also had a series for pride. It was sponsored by skittles, but sadly not only was the logo in greyscale, but they didn't have the the slogan "taste the rainbow". Its london, You've gotta go all in with humour, or it just looks like pride washing....
- wizzwizz4 3y agoThe Skittles logo is always greyscale when they sponsor Pride events. I have no idea whether it's pride-washing, but it has more thought put into it than most.
- pvaldes 3y agoLets try any possible silly idea, except really improving the work conditions for scientists
- explodes 3y agoMaybe an attempt at improving the public image of scientists by humanism can help accomplish that.
- bgandrew 3y agoBut where is that humanism?
- akira2501 3y ago"These people are really important! Which is why they get paid next to nothing and toil in such obscurity that we have to photograph them in poster size just to let you know they actually exist."
- threeseed 3y agoNature isn't responsible for the working conditions of scientists. And even if they were surely we can do more than one thing at a time.
- stavros 3y ago> Nature isn't responsible for the working conditions of scientists. Yep, that's all nurture.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- COGlory 3y agoCan't help but notice a huge over-representation of field scientists. That seems a bit deceptive.
- webwielder2 3y agoPhotos of people staring at computer screens are not particularly inspiring on their own.
- falcor84 3y agoBut what's the value of "inspiring" people to take up a career by lying to them about what it entails? At best, they end up wasting years of their lives before switching careers. At worst, you get what we did to cops, by making them believe that police work is all about shooting the "bad guys", so now it is. The new Fallout show has a funny dystopian take on what a society controlled by scientists would look like. It's obviously exaggerated for comedic effect, but I absolutely wouldn't want us to move the needle even a bit closer to that.
- Retric 3y agoThere’s no lie, if you want to be in the field as a scientist that is an option just not a well paying one. We don’t focus on how much time programmers spend in meetings, because that’s not what defines the job. Also, talking sci-fi as a meaningful reflection on how things would work is kind of silly. It’s not some academic projection of likely outcomes just whatever random nonsense makes for a good story/game.
- gamerpuppy 3y agoI really dislike holding up scientists as a type of person to aspire to. Science is just a tool, and is frequently used to damage the interest of the public good. I would rather venerate those who are veritably kind to their friends and community.
- xanderlewis 3y agoScience is not just a tool; it’s a way of understanding reality — something that for some of us is fundamentally important and requires no justification. And even if it is just a tool, it’s an unbelievably useful one. As far as I know there is no more effective way to build things, change things, study things, etc. than the scientific method. And there’s no science without scientists. Not everyone should aspire to be one, but we should probably all be thankful they exist.
- analog31 3y agoDo you know any scientists? I always ask this in any discussion about scientists, so I'm not just pointing at you. I'd be satisfied with just portraying scientists as normal working people, who might be your neighbors, and have mostly the same concerns about humanity as everybody else. Disclosure: Industrial physicist.
- chekibreki 3y ago[flagged]
- jplrssn 3y agoRepresentative of what? London is one of the most diverse cities in the world.
- zamadatix 3y agoLondon has a population over half white, it's not really all that for a large population center.
- m_a_g 3y agoWhite doesn't mean anything in Europe. It's very much an American concept that's only valid there. If you subdivide the "white" population in London by their culture, you'll see what I mean. Of course, if you measure diversity by the color of people's skin, then that's different. Otherwise, London might be the most diverse city on Earth, sharing the number one spot with New York.
- lwansbrough 3y agoAmericans struggle deeply with their axiom of whiteness. Whiteness in America comes from the unification of caucasians from broad cultural and economic backgrounds against the black slaves that were being raped, tortured and dehumanized systematically over generations. And instead of rectifying the problem by dismantling the concept of whiteness (because it reenforces the power of racial division & hierarchy), it gets promoted as truth and vilified in the name of equality. From an outside perspective, even as close as Canada, this appears regressive. As for the choice to highlight black and brown people in this project that others in the GP are complaining about.. maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that? I have to say if you get upset about minorities being over-represented you need to find a better use of your limited time on Earth.
- JAKC056 3y agoWell, what THEY want you to THINK a scientist looks like. Everything to theatre. Everything is planned.
- ekimekim 3y agoDamn, from the title I was hoping for a series of images of the same scientist, each zoomed in more and more, until it's microscopic.
- modzu 3y agoScience isn't someone in a lab coat wearing goggles and rubber gloves; it is a state of mind
- amiga386 3y agohttps://xkcd.com/242/ https://xkcd.com/242/
- kingspact 3y ago[flagged]
- hcfman 3y agoAhhh, not 50 up close photos of a scientist. Phew!
- RecycledEle 3y agoI'd like to see the resumes of the scientists photographed, so I can be sure they are not actors.
- RecycledEle 3y agoThe entire exhibition is online at: https://www.nature.com/immersive/where-i-work-exhibition/index.html https://www.nature.com/immersive/where-i-work-exhibition/ind...
- RecycledEle 3y agoAt least they give names and locations.
- defrost 3y agoand each person featured has a link through to a multi paragraph minibiography that's more than enough to find their linkedin profiles, universities, education, etc .. at least for the random three I looked at.
- pvaldes 3y agoCan't find "the targeted by politicians and killed for trying to preserve nature". Children will love that one.
- vedmed 3y agoWhat nefarious purposes does the government intend to fulfill with this propaganda?
- foobarkey 3y agoLooking through the photos it becomes clear that 50% scientists are african
- pvaldes 3y agoI think that this deserves to be unburied > As for the choice to highlight black and brown people in this project that others in the GP are complaining about.. maybe they’re under represented in these fields in the UK and the government wants to fix that? This is not the real problem here. Black scientists are perfectly okay. The problem is lying to children about the scientific career, specially if those children are in a minority. Let me explain a thing; in 99% of the cases, when somebody says "we need to inspire children to became scientists", they are not saying what we could think. What they are selling is not "science", is "science courses". And both things are profoundly different.
- pvaldes 3y ago... In general, Universities have all the incentives to sell as much science courses as possible without destroying the demand and market value. As we are swimming in problems in search of talent this is not necessarily bad. But "selling science courses" is profoundly different than "selling a career in science". As most of this children will discover too late, there is not a career waiting at the end of the road. The grant money is in a vault, and the politicians keep the keys.
- pvaldes 3y ago(disclaimer, this is Europe centric and may not apply to US. Your mileage may vary) Lets talk about politicians. For politicians the best outcome possible in the game, is to keep as much as possible of that money for themselves, unless is useful to promote their own careers somehow. They will use every single trick in the book to say "we invested lotta money in science" so they are justified to took it from the vault, but then use the money on other things. Allocating the same money to three different ministries is a good way to round the budget books. How they do it?, 1) Putting arbitrary obstacles so scientists will never reach the money. Some common tricks include: * 1.1 Arbitrary narrow intervals of time where people can apply to the job. In the past I received a lot of job offers after the application interval was closed for example. * 1.2 Feast and famine. Releasing no new offers in months, or years, followed by a flood of offers at the same time in arbitrary periods where applying to more than one job is specifically forbidden. * 1.3 Peekaboo. Lack of a common billboard where all the jobs are advertised. * 1.4 Job offer shaped like a puzzle piece. That is the worse offence and would require a more extensive explanation. This includes lots of constrains. Like the typical constrains by age for example (The same constrains that are specifically forbidden in the constitution). Is impossible to hire a specialist with a complicated pool of unrelated requisites that must be fulfilled previously, unless they are finely knit around an previously known candidate, and they know it. * 1.5 Bureaucracy overload to apply. etc... 2) Spreading and repeating as much as possible the idea that science "is vocational and funny" So scientists should accept the idea that they are privileged to be "volunteering" or "making a better world" or doing "citizen science". Other names for: 'You work for free while I eat the lobster with the money that I would need to "spent" in paying you otherwise'.