UPDATE: we provide the file
Ok kids, Globe has all the e-mails between Dr. Karpova and MIT. Thanks to Mike D. in comments for the heads up and to Margaret Soltan). Remember MIT has a hiring fracas going on. There are claims of a gender situation, we think it is only de facto about gender, but really about scientific ego and power. We have been covering this story- go here for background. Long story short, he totally ratf***ed her. I realize this does not seem like a scientific term, the Globe however has a downloadable file with the transcribed e-mails between the two, and Dr. T really turns on the ooze [file is here: MITmail2.doc ]. I shall quote from them here, note the subject line is “Subject: CONFIDENTIAL”:
Continue reading ‘Susumu Tonegawa=Susemu Tonegawemu’
As is its won’t, it does not cease thickening in a thick like manner.
Typed into comments on the internets today, at our pad and Dr. Shellie’s RE:Susemu Tonegawemu/MIT sitch. Better click for the jump, we have some goldmine situation. Continue reading ‘Concerning the Thickening of a Plot’
Science, one of the top two scientific journals (quit yer cheezin, Cell, I think you know you are a total rag) covers the Tonegawa/MIT stuff in today’s issue. There is not a whole lot new from the Globe article earlier in the week, which we discussed here. We will quote a little from the end of the piece in Science (subscription wall) where we have some new info:
“Tonegawa’s supporters at MIT, however, say that any suggestion of gender bias is absurd. “To portray it as such sets back the cause for women scientists,” states a 7 July letter to Hockfield from a half-dozen Picower Institute faculty members. Tonegawa is under no obligation to collaborate with anyone, they write, adding that he contacted Karpova “at her instigation.” But other sources familiar with the content of e-mails sent by the 68-year-old Tonegawa to the postdoc say his words went beyond the issue of collaboration and conveyed hostility.
Reif says that he will chair a committee to investigate both the Karpova affair and how neuroscience is organized at the university, adding that “a bit of tension seems to be underlying this set of events.” And on 17 July, Hockfield wrote the women faculty members that MIT apologizes to Karpova “for any misunderstanding.” The gender issue may be beside the point, says MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins, who chaired a 1999 committee on gender bias and who signed the 30 June letter. “Regardless of the specifics of this case, this shows exactly why it is challenging to hire outstanding women at MIT,” says Hopkins.
Karpova says she is “very much upset” over the publicity. “I am trying to move on with my life, to get back to doing science,” she says.”
Emphasis is mine. We have a more solid assertion of the content of Tonegawa’s e-mails were hostile in apparent tone (if e-mail can have tone). Our very own UC has reported these same conclusions, and we have a quote from one of the original 11 signers of the letter of complaint. Finally we have a new quote from Dr. Karpova, essentially trying to not let this incident become a spot on her career, even though she didn’t even do anything wrong. This has been your science policy update. Is it too much to ask the Science write for one little typo? Susemu, anyone?
How could we miss this, especially fish.
SusEmu Tonegawa, Nobel Prize winning-chundermuffin.
UPDATE: This issue is mentioned by Gilliard here, and others here and here. I view the assumptions of these bloggers to pile on with no evidence a little disturbing, but I think Gilliard is close to the point in a way, as I will discuss below. Even if this issue is not truly a gender issue, MIT’s record kind of makes it one by default. Also, two sentences added at end from original draft
We may shed some light on a topic. Or not. Allows us to put on our serious pants and wade into the internecine world of scientific politics. We will endeavor to teach by example how it is essentially impossible to illuminate anything in a short newspaper article. The article in question we will deal with is here. The article is from Saturday’s Boston Globe and deals with a recent dust-up at MIT concerning the attempted hiring of a new female faculty member. MIT for the last several years has been at the center of many controversies involving the hiring and support of female faculty members, probably deservedly so in some instances and by reputation only in others. We will not address those issues here. Continue reading ‘For the First Time Ever’