Separating Science From the Scientist

In October 2016, Ditchling Museum of Art + Craft organized an exhibition to discuss a famous sculptor of 20th century, Eric Gill. The theme of the exhibition was to discuss Gill's art from a fresh perspective of that of an abuser. Later next year, Kevin Spacey was written off House of Cards where he played the lead role following sexual harassment charges. These, among many others, are attempts of art industry to address some uncomfortable questions -  should art of an abuser be appreciated? or rather,  can art be separated from the artist?

On this issue, Ed Siegel compared artists to scientists suggesting that it is crucial to evaluate art separate from the artist just as science is evaluated separate from scientists. This is an interesting observation. It implies that the work matters more than the individual. It also implies that with one or more good results, everything uncomfortable about you, all of your personal or professional misdemeanors, can be brushed under the carpet just as long as no one dies. Metaphorically speaking.

Therefore, I would rather try to understand the flip side of Siegel's coin. Why don't we evaluate scientists like artists are being evaluated? More than their work. More as a professional. Or, for that matter, like professionals in any other field? After all, nobody is born a scientist. These same people would nurture different skills and values had they been in, for instance, corporate law or investment banking.

I agree that there are some inherent differences between art and science. Science unlike art is not an individual's expression. A product of science is a result of rational thought, thorough analysis, hard work and skepticism unique to scientists leading them (and their 'peers' who review their work) to be extremely sure of what they propose or prove. This work culture attracts those who wish to build a career in science. A rational thought process, questioning everything and training yourself to understand what data demonstrates. Sadly, it turns out that the reality is not as fascinating because asking questions can lead to scoldings or disinterest from the guide, working fixed hours in lab is frowned upon and in quite a few cases gender based harassment. We learn it the harder way. It may be the open secret that the project we applied to and get selected for won't be the one we work on. It may pop up as a suggestion to do experiments till 9 PM, if needed, because we are single unlike the other lab mates. Or it may be a complete disinterest in the project by a guide (depending upon their engagements in other committees and travel schedules) leading to accumulation of more and more years to PhD. The new PhD students are told that it depends on them how long their PhD takes. No, it depends on a lot of factors you fail to address.

But we sure do highlight the best facets of the scientists and avoid difficult discussions. And we don't throw away their contribution to science in case the scientist turns out to be culpable. I do agree to this approach. People like James Watson and Walter Lewin have suffered the brunt of their actions on their affiliations. Their science (or public lectures) is retained and they are shunned. But don't we accept some really unhealthy practices in our work culture which need not be as serious as sexual harassment or racism? If the objective is to bring more students into science, shouldn't the work culture more accommodating and clement? In my limited experience I came across certain issues a number of times but nobody calls it a problem. So here it is.

Silent students are the work-horse of academia. If they are vocal in early days, they'll dial themselves down in few months to survive in here. I can fully attribute it to the fact that throughout the academic ladder you will need 'reco' (recommendation) from the same person. It demands a silent agreement from the students. Scientists are never held accountable for this culture of passive aggressive intimidation. At one point, I told my elder sister (in software industry) about a celebrated professor who pays as little attention to his students as possible (one of those people serving on multiple committees), she equated this to the position of tech lead in her profession saying, "this guy would be fired long ago from my company. Don't you guys have an HR or something?" In another instance, she mocked me asking if us PhD students were familiar with the term "labour laws".

Another ridiculous idea is pride some scientists take in high drop-out rate from their lab. Why are you proud of your bad treatment to students? (If you assume that I am saying that bad students don't exist, I am not going to defend myself.) This behavior kills our love for science, cripples self-worth for many students and is upfront non-inclusive. The open secret of not getting married until PhD is complete is discriminatory towards people coming from small towns and orthodox social circles. The idea that one must be fine with their bare minimum stipend ("we earned even less in our time, we never create a ruckus") is cruel. And I am not sure if any other fields inherently cause mental health issues in early career personnel so infectiously as in academia.

Of course, there are much more serious and indisputable problems like sexual harassment cases which, many a times, also go unpunished by scientific community. I am often reminded of two cases how science treats harassers. One guy was suspended and reinstated in a premier university (who I will not name, one google search and you will know). Another guy expelled from his position due to sexual harassment case against him found a job at one of the Max Planck institutes based on his research work! Not to forget the infamous Kentler Project where homeless children were sent to pedophile foster parents including some high-ranking officials of MPIs. And remember Raya Sarkar's Google doc? Was there any action taken against any of them besides the two who were already convicted? That is a different discussion.

It is only since past few years, we students have started seeing the actual life of scientists more than just authors or affiliations thanks to the internet. Scientists talking about their colleagues or seniors, bloggers writing their experiences and reports. Life moments like how Edsger Dijkstra's profession as a 'programmer' was not accepted in his marital rites because Dutch government back then thought there is no such profession. How Einstein didn't give any authorship to his wife, who had equal contribution if not more, for the works for which he received Nobel later. How James Watson was openly sexist and racist. Does any student while reading their papers ever think about the life of a PhD student working with these people? Do any scientist imagine how were they as a colleague? Does anyone make sure that the bad behavior is not tolerated and good behavior is appreciated regardless of scientific output? Because we are not a printing press for papers. Or are we?

The point of this discourse is to address microaggressions cracking the foundation bit by bit every generation and hitting the bottom of the pile. As a student, it hurts to see the pretty picture of rational thought process and questioning everything turn darker and darker as I get close to it.