Thatâs 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 soâŚitâs a complement, right?
Itâs the final and most critical part of the whole panorama! TheseâŚare supposed to be the smart people?
Unless the âlife sciencesâ being discussed are of the âProâ or âDivinely Createdâ type; that would make more sense I supposeâŚ
It gets so much better: @TomReller from Elsevier defends the image by saying âYou want me to apologize for the fact that more women donât win nobel prizes? And how exactly should I fix that today?â
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 donât know a single scientist who doesnât 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)
Itâs 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.
Well, I do count around 14.500 missing pieces so far on thecostofknowledge.com
Hmmm⌠if Iâm 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.
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.
Yeah, and when they start winning some Nobel prizes, theyâll make the grade on Elsevierâs shitty newsletter campaign. Losers.
I wouldnât be so sure it was the graphic artistâs idea. More likely some exec emailed a couple of dozen of headshots to the newsletter guy and said âput these on the cover.â
Iâm guessing the same visionary who said âwe want a jigsaw puzzle, but with a missing piece!â
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.
I see youâve spent time as a hapless cog inside a soulless institutional machine too.
You betcha!
If you think the life sciences are bad, take a look a physics
Trade you that for any corporate HR materials that Iâve been issued over the last 25 years, in which white males appear far less frequently than they do in the actual workforce.
Well, thereâs no Nobel Prize for graphic designâŚ
Why donât people up their fucking journals to TPB??? The solution is: offer a piracy option.
I donât see enough lens flare on this snark⌠pick up your game, guys.
Shut up and no, you are incapable of being sexually harassed.
Um, I could understand a random woman seeing this ad and being like âscrew you, science isnât only for old white guys, any woman could do it do!â Which is obviously true. But if youâre a woman or a person of color, and already in the sciences, youâd be like âDude, these guys are the vanguard of the field, and their contributions have been seminal to the work Iâm doing now. If Iâm lucky one day Iâll be able to discuss my work with them and get their ideas on how to make it even better.â 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, donât come to our defense with your half-baked outrage about lack of diversity??. âEligibilityâ was never an issue, viability and access was, and those barriers have receded significantly, and if youâve ever spent time in any graduate school, youâll see the next generation will indeed look very different. Idiots.
Iâm right there with you. Becoming a big name in a field doesnât 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.
