#1 By: Xeni Jardin, February 13th, 2014 17:49
#2 By: gwailo_joe, February 13th, 2014 18:05
That's a fairly large missing piece: there could be at least four non-white, non-male scientists that were segregated and excised from the picture. And if so...it's a complement, right?
It's the final and most critical part of the whole panorama! These...are supposed to be the smart people?
Unless the 'life sciences' being discussed are of the 'Pro' or 'Divinely Created' type; that would make more sense I suppose...
#3 By: chickenpants, February 13th, 2014 18:49
It gets so much better: @TomReller from Elsevier defends the image by saying "You want me to apologize for the fact that more women don't win nobel prizes? And how exactly should I fix that today?"
#4 By: MBR, February 13th, 2014 18:51
This picture shows a lack of sensitivity by one graphic artist working for a backward organization that has done more in recent years to impede the free flow of scientific information than just about anyone else I can think of. I don't know a single scientist who doesn't curse every time a paper they need is behind the Elsevier paywall.
Women now make up close to 60% of all bio and life science degree seekers, at the bachelors, masters and PhD levels. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/where-the-women-are-biology.html?_r=0)
It's quite obvious that Elsevier mostly wants to publish the work of scientists nearing retirement, a point they made quite well. Maybe the new best and brightest will publish somewhere open access, where their work will benefit humanity without carrying a parasite along for the ride.
#5 By: avocadohead, February 13th, 2014 19:06
Well, I do count around 14.500 missing pieces so far on thecostofknowledge.com
#6 By: TheMadLibrarian, February 13th, 2014 19:10
Hmmm... if I'm the missing piece, and the ad is supposed to spotlight Nobel prizewinners, does this mean Elsevier thinks I ought to get a Nobel Prize? Hilarity ensues.
#7 By: DrRuss, February 13th, 2014 19:28
They want to imply that they consider the reader to be as esteemed a scientists as the Nobel Prize winners. It is plain old sucking up. Imagining a deeper message is reading way to much into the mailing.
#8 By: robulus, February 13th, 2014 19:29
Yeah, and when they start winning some Nobel prizes, they'll make the grade on Elsevier's shitty newsletter campaign. Losers.
#9 By: Tim, February 13th, 2014 19:41
I wouldn't be so sure it was the graphic artist's idea. More likely some exec emailed a couple of dozen of headshots to the newsletter guy and said "put these on the cover."
#10 By: robulus, February 13th, 2014 19:49
I'm guessing the same visionary who said "we want a jigsaw puzzle, but with a missing piece!"
Their next promotion will feature a globe of the world with an arrow going around it, to show how they get submissions from all around the world.
#11 By: Tim, February 13th, 2014 19:56
I see you've spent time as a hapless cog inside a soulless institutional machine too.
#12 By: robulus, February 13th, 2014 20:06
#14 By: Rob, February 13th, 2014 20:10
If you think the life sciences are bad, take a look a physics
#15 By: Dan Patterson, February 13th, 2014 21:09
Trade you that for any corporate HR materials that I've been issued over the last 25 years, in which white males appear far less frequently than they do in the actual workforce.
#16 By: crabus, February 13th, 2014 21:18
Well, there's no Nobel Prize for graphic design...
#17 By: teapot, February 13th, 2014 23:00
Why don't people up their fucking journals to TPB??? The solution is: offer a piracy option.
#18 By: teapot, February 13th, 2014 23:03
I don't see enough lens flare on this snark.... pick up your game, guys.
#19 By: teapot, February 13th, 2014 23:04
Shut up and no, you are incapable of being sexually harassed.
#20 By: Jacques, February 14th, 2014 00:53
Um, I could understand a random woman seeing this ad and being like "screw you, science isn't only for old white guys, any woman could do it do!" Which is obviously true. But if you're a woman or a person of color, and already in the sciences, you'd be like "Dude, these guys are the vanguard of the field, and their contributions have been seminal to the work I'm doing now. If I'm lucky one day I'll be able to discuss my work with them and get their ideas on how to make it even better." Because they are not some generic demographic or contingency, they are individual brilliant minds who have contributed greatly to our society. And we recognize that, and that inspires us to elevate our work and standards to continue their legacy. So um, don't come to our defense with your half-baked outrage about lack of diversity??. "Eligibility" was never an issue, viability and access was, and those barriers have receded significantly, and if you've ever spent time in any graduate school, you'll see the next generation will indeed look very different. Idiots.
#21 By: TheRationalPi, February 14th, 2014 01:11
I'm right there with you. Becoming a big name in a field doesn't happen overnight, so looking at the most distinguished researchers of today is like looking at a time capsule of the incoming students of forty or fifty years.
The real question is what that picture would look like fifty years from now.
next page →