The Tim Hunt Brouhaha

If you haven't ever seen a witch hunt, I would recommend tuning in to the recent news surrounding Tim Hunt. Apparently he was a Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine. I'd never heard of him before this past week. He unfortunately played into a script the feminist movement loves to jump on: famous old man finally reveals his misogyny through comments that prove he has been persecuting women his whole life. This person is then isolated and demonized. The damning quote must be repeated and repeated. Anyone who knows him or dares speak a positive word on his behalf is then also isolated and demonized. This process is then repeated in a branching tree of accusation until as many men are destroyed as possible. This is the dark side of feminism; the misandryous side. The side I have heard many good, honest feminists who are only striving for equal rights say doesn't exist.

Let's look at what was said and then how it was portrayed. Two days ago Hunt gave a talk at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists (I hadn't heard of that organization before either) in Seoul, South Korea entitled "Creative Science - Only a Game?" The quote from Tim Hunt as it appears in the media is

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls ... three things happen when they are in the lab ... You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry."

When I don't read Hunt's quote with the preconceived notion that he is a misogynist jerk, but instead read it from the perspective of trying to understand the difficulties of men and women working together I come away with an entirely different interpretation. I know female scientists who have fallen in love with their male labmates. I know male scientists who have fallen in love with their female labmates. I know of female scientists who have cried when criticized. It seems that he says "my" because he has experienced these things personally. Are they distractions? I don't think anyone would dispute that for amorous relationships. As humans we are hardwired to reproduce and so love can swamp our focus. As for crying under criticism, it brings the discussion out of the logical realm and into the emotional one. The same can be said for other human emotions. Emotions don't always fit naturally into scientific discourse. Will you be more or less likely to criticize a fellow scientist who cried last time you argued that the direction their research was going was a dead end or that their theory had holes in it? Personally, I know I would be less likely. Even though logically I know that offering my criticism could help them improve their work and profit from my experience, I wouldn't want to offer criticism that made someone cry.

Tim Hunt said something about human sexuality that our puritanical culture still can't seem to handle. Attraction and sex are not inherently bad. When you put men and women together these things happen. We need to stop pretending that it's not so. Just look at the culture of rape that has been created in the US military since men where give physical control over women. Again, our puritanical culture tries to pretend it doesn't exist and ignores those who try decry how widespread the problem is. Women in the US military who report sexual assault are much more likely to see their careers suffer than their assailants prosecuted. Of course, one could gone on practically forever about the failings of military institutions . . .

So after Tim Hunt's talk their was a media firestorm. He made an apology. This much doesn't seem to be disputed. The feminist misandrists then knew that they had a victim who would not fight back and stepped up their rhetoric. They say that his apology is not an apology because he says he was only trying to "be honest". See! they say, he has admitted the misogyny in his heart and his lifelong persecution of women! They then begin to prepare the public scaffold. When he has been forced to resign, then they look for other victims. Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, president of the European Research Council, has been called on to also resign for releasing this statement where he comes to the defense of Hunt and then affirms "The ERC's clear view is that women and men are equally able to perform frontier research at the highest level." They are going for the biggest headcount they can.

But what was the full sentence detractors are latching onto as a nonapology?

"I'm very sorry that what I thought were light hearted ironic remarks were taken so seriously, and I'm very sorry if people took offence. I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings."

So who started the brouhaha? The witch hunt? A journalist, Connie St Louis, who went even further in mischaracterizing his remarks in a tweet. She said he claimed a chauvinist and "in favour of single-sex labs". One would think that the rest of the media would have latched onto these claims as well if they could be substantiated. It seems her most recent journalism to appear in a major news outlet also regarded men who resigned for sexist remarks, so she also has some experience in that area. Considering her position at some point St Louis must have done some decent Science journalism (c. f. her CV), so one would be surprised if she fabricated these other statements. They could just be the unfiltered personal prejudices we all too often air on twitter. Or it could be a pattern, considering she was accused of misquoting another journalist (Richard Black) as recently as 2013. Of course, nobody is calling for St Louis to be fired.

So do Hunt's comments negate the work he did over his life to advance Science? Plenty of people thought he should lose his job over them. I wonder how many think he should give back his Nobel Prize? Are these opinions that heretical that the person who spoke them be crushed so completely? Should Science be intolerant of iconoclasts? Of sexists? Of racists? Of bigots? Of the intolerant? Or in censuring certain ideas as unspeakable is the progress of Science impeded? Should anyone who speaks a word apart from the politically correct orthodoxy be unemployable and cast out from society? I, for one, would rather live in a world where ideas can freely be shared, jokes can be told, and witch hunts are laughed down rather than lauded.