“The wrong kind of woman”, or how DEI ideology criminalizes accomplishment
Based on the recent “controversy” at the 72nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting.
The annual Nobel Laureate Meetings in Lindau (Germany) are unique events that bring Nobel laureates together with young scientists, “undergraduates, PhD students, and post-doc researchers from all over the world.” To participate, young scientists have to undergo a rigorous selection process. They represent “the emerging generation of leading scientists and researchers”, and “when they leave the meeting, they become Lindau Alumni”. I was selected to attend the 56th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in Chemistry in 2006.
This year, at the panel On the Future of Structural Biology, Kurt Wüthrich (2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for his development of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy for determining the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules in solution”) made some remarks that were deemed “controversial”. There is a video of the entire session available on-line, and Amanda Heidt (@Scatter_Cushion) wrote a somewhat strange piece for Science, to which I return below.
It is unfortunate that this “controversy” overshadowed the panel itself, as there were noteworthy moments there. For example, at one point, Kurt Wüthrich exclaims, “Science is fun!” (time index 25:35 in the video). At another point, Joachim Frank (2017 Nobel Prize in Chemistry “for developing cryo-electron microscopy for the high-resolution structure determination of biomolecules in solution”) and Kurt Wüthrich discuss what is meant by the structure of intrinsically disordered proteins. Spurred by several excellent questions from the audience, Joachim Frank expresses confusion that Kurt Wüthrich clarifies (time index 45:08). Both are excellent examples of what science is about: the joy of learning and discovery, as well as the interactions that foster them. To see Nobel laureates engaging in the process of sharing knowledge before one’s eyes is quite inspiring. No less inspiring for someone like me, who did his undergraduate and PhD research in structural biology, are Kurt Wüthrich’s comments on the interdisciplinary nature of that field (time index 26:00). One also notes palpable excitement with which the Nobel laureates take questions from the audience, from male and female scientists alike.
The “controversy” arose when during his talk, Kurt Wüthrich lamented that “… science is not going to be the main subject of the meeting”, a problem that, he said, was also reflected in the news reports about the meeting (time index 28:30). He went on to refer to an interview with Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard (1995 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for … discoveries concerning the genetic control of early embryonic development”). The interview is in German, and Wüthrich requested to have it translated and distributed to all the participants at the meeting to illustrate what science is not about. He went on to say that “… as a male scientist”, he had “… a feeling of discrimination” in the climate of the meeting.
A young female scientist member of the audience who chose to remain anonymous responded to Wüthrich’s remarks during the discussion period. At time index 46:36, she says that as a female researcher, his comments made her “feel uncomfortable”, and asked for a comment on how his remarks fit into the diversity and inclusion guidelines of the meeting. Wüthrich responded that he felt “unjustly attacked” by her because when making his remarks, he was quoting a woman. It is here (time index 49:07) that the anonymous audience member made the most astonishing remark: “… [Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard] is a very, extremely successful Nobel Laureate…”, she said. In other words, Wüthrich had the audacity to quote the wrong kind of woman. It appears that Nüsslein-Volhard’s fault is that she was successful. Apparently, her success somehow justifies her exclusion from the ranks of female scientists to be consulted on the issue of hurdles facing women in academia. We used to refer to women like Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, who was born in 1942, as trailblazers; how the world has changed.
I have no problem with the anonymous scientist speaking up—I disagree with pretty much everything she said, but she absolutely had the right to say it. When I say this, I am not referring to the freedom of speech issues; that’s not the point here. What I mean is that anything brought up by the panel members during their talks has to be fair game in the discussion; no exceptions. The moderator, Wolfgang Lubitz, had no business trying to shut her down. To his credit, he realized his mistake, apologized, offered an explanation, such as it was, and pointed out that there was more time specifically allocated at the meeting for discussing that very topic.
I also respect her desire to remain anonymous, hope her anonymity continues to be protected, and that she suffers no ill will or professional setbacks for her comments. People need to be free to say things others might consider controversial or stupid, or things that make others uncomfortable. The same courtesy should, of course, be extended to Wüthrich and Nüsslein-Volhard, who put their names and reputations on the line when they spoke up to challenge the dogma besieging academia today.
Yet, her remark about Nüsslein-Volhard’s success epitomizes what is wrong with DEI ideology, how badly it has already damaged academia, and why it will continue to wreak havoc unless stopped: DEI is about criminalizing success, denigrating accomplishment, mocking merit, ignoring aptitude, and eschewing achievement. This is apparent in the accusations of “proximity to whiteness” levied against Asians in the wake of the SCOTUS’ ruling on affirmative action, and the notion of privilege levied against the Jews. These peoples’ histories do not fit into the left-wing myth of oppressed minorities, the myth that is now ruling academia. It is also apparent in the attitude to Nüsslein–Volhard expressed by various members of the scientific community who commented on this “controversy”.
For example, when asked why she did not interview women from the DEI panel at Lindau for her Science piece, Amanda Heidt responded that she found Nüsslein–Volhard’s comments even more troubling than those of Kurt Wüthrich. (Nüsslein–Volhard was one of the two women Nobel laureates on that panel and her remarks can be heard first-hand here; the approach to journalism where one avoids interviewing someone, whose views they find “troubling”, seems strange to me, but apparently it is accepted by Science). In another example, some (male) scientists went as far as to accuse Christiane Nüsslein–Volhard of misogyny; if that’s not uncomfortable, I don’t know what is.
Who would be the right person to ask about the hurdles facing women in academia? The anonymous young female scientist attacking Wüthrich and Nüsslein–Volhard at Lindau said that Wüthrich could have asked “…any young female scientist…”. This is hardly surprising: it has always been the goal of DEI activists to create in academia a monoculture of people who think, talk, act, and otherwise resemble the activists themselves. Furthermore, her answer illustrates how successful DEI efforts have been at engendering in the current generation of young scientists the belief that women in academia are facing more significant hurdles today than women born 80 years ago; that the woman who overcame those hurdles, was awarded a Nobel Prize for her scientific work, and who then started a foundation helping young women with children further their scientific careers had no wisdom to offer—either about today’s science or about the hurdles facing women engaging in it—because her words do not fit into the current dogma. It shows how successful DEI efforts have been at raising a generation of young scientists who, in a competition to prove themselves most oppressed, trample over the giants who have blazed the trails for them instead of standing on the shoulders of those giants; who pretend we live in some sort of a dystopian nightmare akin to the USSR, Iran, or Afghanistan, rather than in Western democratic countries where they are free to attend a lavish meeting with the best of the best the international scientific community has to offer, a meeting where they are free to speak openly and critically. This has been the most significant achievement of DEI efforts in academia to date. It gives us a glimpse of the future. Is that really the future we want?
I too was often given the same argument -- that you cannot use examples of successful women and that those who succeeded should have no voice. When I point out to many successful women who rose to the top within the current system, who benefited from mentoring and support from their male advisors, and who were not put off by the lack of role models, I am told that these success stories mean nothing because we need to hear from the losers who quit science. It is an illustration of victimhood mindset.
As a very successful senior woman, I have run into this mentality myself and been condemned as racist and sexist for advising on how to be successful. A friend, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, has also been a target, as has another friend, whose "woke" credentials are impeccable (but, apparently, too much in the past). All three of us came up in male-dominated sciences and were often the first or only women in many spheres during our careers. My friend with the impeccable credentials was the first to examine the challenges for women in Earth sciences. We withdrew from a women's science network because, despite our success and > 100 collective years of experience being successful in a male-dominated profession, we were considered not only irrelevant but, by some, actually malign. The remark that young women are eager to prove how oppressed they are really hit home. They have no idea.