From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat Dec 21 12:33:00 2019 From: "Irene Newhouse einew]^[hotmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Meritocracy, and all other things Message-Id: <-53912-191220211308-16149-BVgto1zBqJyEkmFR5DA0YQ!=!server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Irene Newhouse Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM6PR14MB361648FE549C024AD7E2FF8DBF2C0DM6PR14MB3616namp_" Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 02:13:01 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Irene Newhouse [einew^^^hotmail.com] --_000_DM6PR14MB361648FE549C024AD7E2FF8DBF2C0DM6PR14MB3616namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please forgive me if this has come up in this thread already, but one of th= e strongest arguments for imperfect meritocracy in science is the experience of Ben Barres, who found his trans= ition from Barbara to Ben a positive career move - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barres Irene Newhouse --_000_DM6PR14MB361648FE549C024AD7E2FF8DBF2C0DM6PR14MB3616namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
Please forgive me if this has come up =
in this thread already, but one of the strongest arguments for imperfect 

meritocracy in science is the experien=
ce of Ben Barres, who found his transition from Barbara to Ben a 


positive career move - see https://en.wi=
kipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Barres


Irene Newhouse

--_000_DM6PR14MB361648FE549C024AD7E2FF8DBF2C0DM6PR14MB3616namp_-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat Dec 21 13:08:00 2019 From: "Salter-Duke, Brian James - brian.james.duke^^gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Meritocracy Message-Id: <-53913-191221011825-24215-pipoh2QhP8hfcb/fk07DXA~!~server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Salter-Duke, Brian James -" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:18:11 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Salter-Duke, Brian James -" [brian.james.duke=-=gmail.com] There are several issues here. The first article from Australia is about how students access professors, lecturers and other instructors. There might well be bias there in some institutions and perhaps most likely in institutions with a strong history of largely mail based technical education. Your first example is such a case. It is also about physics while my experience is in chemistry. There is then the case of students informally accessing other students. My experience is that males assess female students as being better and more diligent than themselves. Then there is the assessment of students by instructors. My colleagies found female students to be better in general in all respects. In many chemistry departments there has been strong female role models, with female full professors and female heads of department. The situation was bad 30 or 40 years ago, but it has changed dramatically over the years since. By my experience I mean the students in the 1990s and early 2000s who I supervised as honours project students or research students. Only one was male. The rest were all female and they were very confident and excellent students. I have been retired since 2003, but I still get feedback that supports the same situation. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 07:00:33PM -0700, Matthias Heger heger|ualberta.ca wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger..ualberta.ca] > Hello Brian! > > The first study I referred to was indeed from the US, the second one from Israel. After some quick googling, here are two more studies specifically from Australia: > https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.003 > https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209749 > > (I'm also curious why you stated that this is not your experience. After all, you're a man, so why should it be? - Or maybe I just misunderstood what you meant.) > > Best, > Matthias > > > > Am 20-Dec.-2019 um 2:33 p.m. schrieb Salter-Duke, Brian James brian.james.duke###gmail.com: > > > > Sent to CCL by: "Salter-Duke, Brian James " [brian.james.duke---gmail.com] > > This post is interesting, but it is not my experience in Australia. Is it > > about the US? In discussions of this kind, I think the writers need to say > > where they come from. > > > > Brian Duke, Adjunct Associate Professor at Monash University, but I also > > know Melbourne University Chemistry quite well. > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:45:09AM -0700, Matthias Heger heger=-=ualberta.ca wrote: > >> > >> Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta.ca] > >> Sebastian, > >> > >> First of all, thank you for that very detailed breakdown of what the meritocracy argument really is: A tool to justify the blatant victim shaming that we're seeing in this discussion. > >> > >> You're asking if you are forgetting anything in your list. I would actually expand on your fourth item - not fostering students from certain backgrounds enough - from the perspective of the current issue. How girls and women are judged in mathematics and science is not just about background, it absolutely is about gender too. This can be very clearly demonstrated. For example, randomized male or female names on otherwise identical resumes lead to drastic differences in how the applicants are rated in terms of competence and hireability for scientific positions. [1] One study found that already in primary school, girls can perform equally as well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if the tests are anonymized - otherwise, there is a distinct bias against them. This has obvious and lasting effects on their academic career choices right from the very start. [2] > >> > >> Gender bias among teachers and professors is an open secret. Putting the "meritocracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing less than adding insult to injury. It actually reminds me of the whole "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing. > >> > >> Best, > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474 > >> [2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w20909 > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 19-Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gmail.com: > >>> Sent to CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com] > >>> > >>> Dear CCLers: > >>> > >>> Since the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already discussed > >>> here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about it. Enough is to say > >>> that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong. > >>> > >>> > >>> However, I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy. > >>> > >>> > >>> TL;DR version: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong. Savage > >>> capitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kind of wrong. > >>> > >>> > >>> Long version: > >>> > >>> For those that are not familiar with it, there is a concept known in economy, > >>> sociology and obviously in sociology of science called the Matthew effect: > >>> > >>> "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but > >>> from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29) > >>> > >>> In simple words: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" > >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect) > >>> > >>> We know this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in the 21st > >>> century, but there are many studies that point to something that we all know > >>> here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a huge advantage > >>> to receive more grants, good students and honors in the future. There are > >>> mathematical models > >>> (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) already > >>> pointing to the obvious: > >>> > >>> > >>> Success = Talent + Luck > >>> > >>> Great Success = A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck > >>> > >>> (Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow") > >>> > >>> > >>> Nobody says that the big names in comp chem are not bright. But there are tons > >>> of other bright and extremely hard working people that never made it to the big > >>> leagues due to a lack of luck. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but > >>> nobody could know that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods > >>> of science). Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were born in > >>> the wrong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture where women > >>> are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect the family values". If > >>> by a stroke of luck you had a good head-start, your chances of success in the > >>> future grow exponentially. > >>> > >>> In other words: Meritocracy is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both in the > >>> economic and in the academic world. > >>> > >>> > >>> We are loosing many talents due to the lack of diversity and the belief that > >>> people reached their status only due to their capacity. We are making things > >>> worse each time: > >>> > >>> 1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women. > >>> > >>> 2) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors > >>> > >>> 3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to pronounce the > >>> names of the authors (this is a real thing!) > >>> > >>> 4) We do not put more effort in teaching and forming students coming from less > >>> happy backgrounds or less "academic" cultures > >>> > >>> 5) We give great honors to selected people just because they got honors in the past > >>> > >>> 6) We blindly take the H-index as THE measure > >>> > >>> 7) We applaud the people that published more papers than can humanly write (or > >>> even read!) > >>> > >>> (what am I forgetting in this list?) > >>> > >>> > >>> Of course that publishing more and getting prizes is great. Each time that my > >>> H-index climbs one number I get drunk. But we must acknowledge the luck effect, > >>> and especially the Matthew effect, in our and others successes. > >>> > >>> The fair thing is to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the less > >>> lucky ones, with the hope they will have the same chances of showing their > >>> capacity. Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st century. > >>> It's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women and/or people > >>> whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' list of invited speakers. > >>> > >>> > >>> Meritocracy should be one-way: the one who merits, should receive. If you > >>> believe that the ones that received did so exclusively because they merit, oh > >>> boy. Not only you are unfair, you are unscientific. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks for listening to my rant, > >>> > >>> Sebastian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[a]gmail.com] > >>>> So, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 genders in their program. > >>>> > >>>>> From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. Seifert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead. > >>>> That is unfortunate. It reduces these Workshops to useless displays of virtue signaling and mediocre science. > >>>> > >>>> I will not comment further. I'll have to invoke Mark Twain when he said " "Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig." > >>>> > >>>> Jim Kress > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skeinan : gmail.com > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM > >>>> To: Kress, Jim > >>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistry > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kathrin here, it is the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanced conference. > >>>> > >>>> And it is the role of the community to call them out when they fail to do so. > >>>> > >>>> Shahar > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zborowsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl wrote: > >>>>> Sent to CCL by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.pl] W dniu > >>>>> 2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopmann kathrin.hopmann.:.uit.no > >>>>> napisał(a): > >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dear > >>>>>> Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am sorry that I may have miscounted, it seems there is 1 female > >>>>>> speaker among the 19 confirmed invited speakers (perhaps I have > >>>>>> misinterpreted some of the other name and there are more?). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know it is not easy for conference organizers to ensure a > >>>>>> gender-balanced program. But we need to talk about this problem > >>>>>> sometimes, so that we can find out how we can improve things. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> with best regards, > >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann > >>>>> Do not only talk about, simply take a part in the conference, then the > >>>>> balance will be significantly improved. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann > >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 11:27 > >>>>>> To: 'CCL Subscribers' > >>>>>> Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I counted 19 confirmed invited speakers on your website. > >>>>>> Sadly, not a single of these seems to be a woman. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> with best regards > >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann==uit.no^ccl.net > >>>>>>> On Behalf Of > >>>>>>> Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand.eu > >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 06:47 > >>>>>> To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann > >>>>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods > >>>>>> in Chemistry > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: "Francois Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu] > >>>>>> Registration for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry (FJCMC2020) is open! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please consider joining us March 19th and 20th 2020 at Kumamoto > >>>>>> university (Japan). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We will be lucky to have presentations by many prestigious speakers: > >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/invited-speakers.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> More information can be found at: > >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/index.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The registration page is: > >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The > >>>>>> > >>>>>> organizers.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www. > >>>>>> ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>> Conferences: > >>>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/-- > >>>>> Krzysztof K. Zborowski > >>>>> Faculty of Chemistry > >>>>> Jagiellonian University in Krakow > >>>>> 2 Gronostajowa Street > >>>>> 30-387 Krakow > >>>>> Poland > >>>>> email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plConferences: > >>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/> > > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ----------------- > >>>> Shahar Keinan > >>>> (919)-357-5319http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:>> > >>>> E-mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or usehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml > >>>> > >>>> Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.ccl.net > >>>> > >>>> Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs > >>>> Conferences:http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ > >>>> > >>>> Search Messages:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt > >>>> > >>>> RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/To > >>> recover the email address of the author of the message, please change the > >>> strange characters on the top line to the :-: sign. You can also look up the > >>> X-Original-From: line in the mail header. E-mail to subscribers: > >>> CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail > >>> to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBefore posting, check wait time at: > >>> http://www.ccl.netConferences: > >>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Messages: > >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If your mail bounces from CCL > >>> with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI: > >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/> -- Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Brian.Salter-Duke.~!~.monash.edu Adjunct Associate Professor Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences Monash University Parkville Campus, VIC 3052, Australia From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Sat Dec 21 13:43:00 2019 From: "Nicola Gaston n.gaston+*+auckland.ac.nz" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Meritocracy Message-Id: <-53914-191221074830-11948-DTXN4WULoDnZ3zqrTb9Q1Q[]server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Nicola Gaston" Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 07:48:24 -0500 Sent to CCL by: "Nicola Gaston" [n.gaston]_[auckland.ac.nz] Dear all, Ive been pondering whether or not it is constructive to add to this thread; I note that the real work of trying to help the organisers with their original problem with invitations has moved to other venues thanks to everyone who has responded to help with that. But in the spirit of Christmas, I figured I could make this offer for anyone still confused by the issue being talked about here: if youd like a copy of my attempt to make sense of all the literature that is out there on this... http://www.bwb.co.nz/books/why-science-is-sexist Just email me and tell me whether youd prefer the PDF or the ePub version, and while I cant give too many copies away out of responsibility to my publisher, Ill commit to giving a copy to everyone who emails before Christmas. Meri Kirihimete Nicola (Auckland NZ, though currently in Germany on sabbatical) > "Matthias Heger heger|ualberta.ca" wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger..ualberta.ca] > Hello Brian! > > The first study I referred to was indeed from the US, the second one from Israel. After some quick googling, here are two more studies specifically from Australia: > https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.08.003 > https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209749 > > (I'm also curious why you stated that this is not your experience. After all, you're a man, so why should it be? - Or maybe I just misunderstood what you meant.) > > Best, > Matthias > > > > Am 20-Dec.-2019 um 2:33 p.m. schrieb Salter-Duke, Brian James brian.james.duke###gmail.com: > > > > Sent to CCL by: "Salter-Duke, Brian James " [brian.james.duke---gmail.com] > > This post is interesting, but it is not my experience in Australia. Is it > > about the US? In discussions of this kind, I think the writers need to say > > where they come from. > > > > Brian Duke, Adjunct Associate Professor at Monash University, but I also > > know Melbourne University Chemistry quite well. > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:45:09AM -0700, Matthias Heger heger=-=ualberta.ca wrote: > >> > >> Sent to CCL by: Matthias Heger [heger(a)ualberta.ca] > >> Sebastian, > >> > >> First of all, thank you for that very detailed breakdown of what the meritocracy argument really is: A tool to justify the blatant victim shaming that we're seeing in this discussion. > >> > >> You're asking if you are forgetting anything in your list. I would actually expand on your fourth item - not fostering students from certain backgrounds enough - from the perspective of the current issue. How girls and women are judged in mathematics and science is not just about background, it absolutely is about gender too. This can be very clearly demonstrated. For example, randomized male or female names on otherwise identical resumes lead to drastic differences in how the applicants are rated in terms of competence and hireability for scientific positions. [1] One study found that already in primary school, girls can perform equally as well or even better than boys in math exams, but only if the tests are anonymized - otherwise, there is a distinct bias against them. This has obvious and lasting effects on their academic career choices right from the very start. [2] > >> > >> Gender bias among teachers and professors is an open secret. Putting the "meritocracy" nonsense on top of it is nothing less than adding insult to injury. It actually reminds me of the whole "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" thing. > >> > >> Best, > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474 > >> [2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w20909 > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 19-Dec.-2019 um 12:51 a.m. schrieb Sebastian seb.kozuch*o*gmail.com: > >>> Sent to CCL by: Sebastian [seb.kozuch_-_gmail.com] > >>> > >>> Dear CCLers: > >>> > >>> Since the topic of the women "quota" in comp chem has been already discussed > >>> here before (see the grand ICQC affair), I won't talk about it. Enough is to say > >>> that I believe that Jim Kress is wrong. > >>> > >>> > >>> However, I would like to talk about the concept of Meritocracy. > >>> > >>> > >>> TL;DR version: Whoever believes in meritocracy is wrong. Horribly wrong. Savage > >>> capitalism style of wrong. "Make America great again" kind of wrong. > >>> > >>> > >>> Long version: > >>> > >>> For those that are not familiar with it, there is a concept known in economy, > >>> sociology and obviously in sociology of science called the Matthew effect: > >>> > >>> "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but > >>> from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29) > >>> > >>> In simple words: "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" > >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect) > >>> > >>> We know this from the great inequality that has plagued the world in the 21st > >>> century, but there are many studies that point to something that we all know > >>> here: Whoever received scientific prizes in the past will have a huge advantage > >>> to receive more grants, good students and honors in the future. There are > >>> mathematical models > >>> (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525918500145) already > >>> pointing to the obvious: > >>> > >>> > >>> Success = Talent + Luck > >>> > >>> Great Success = A little more of Talent + A lot of Luck > >>> > >>> (Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow") > >>> > >>> > >>> Nobody says that the big names in comp chem are not bright. But there are tons > >>> of other bright and extremely hard working people that never made it to the big > >>> leagues due to a lack of luck. Maybe their PhD project was doomed to fail, but > >>> nobody could know that until someone tries it (a kind of sacrifice to the gods > >>> of science). Maybe their postdoc adviser was an a-hole. Maybe they were born in > >>> the wrong side of the world. And yes, maybe you come from a culture where women > >>> are not accepted as scientists since they will "neglect the family values". If > >>> by a stroke of luck you had a good head-start, your chances of success in the > >>> future grow exponentially. > >>> > >>> In other words: Meritocracy is a myth. A dangerous, unfair myth. Both in the > >>> economic and in the academic world. > >>> > >>> > >>> We are loosing many talents due to the lack of diversity and the belief that > >>> people reached their status only due to their capacity. We are making things > >>> worse each time: > >>> > >>> 1) We do not check that we give enough slots to women. > >>> > >>> 2) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know the authors > >>> > >>> 3) We review in a more harshly way a paper if we don't know how to pronounce the > >>> names of the authors (this is a real thing!) > >>> > >>> 4) We do not put more effort in teaching and forming students coming from less > >>> happy backgrounds or less "academic" cultures > >>> > >>> 5) We give great honors to selected people just because they got honors in the past > >>> > >>> 6) We blindly take the H-index as THE measure > >>> > >>> 7) We applaud the people that published more papers than can humanly write (or > >>> even read!) > >>> > >>> (what am I forgetting in this list?) > >>> > >>> > >>> Of course that publishing more and getting prizes is great. Each time that my > >>> H-index climbs one number I get drunk. But we must acknowledge the luck effect, > >>> and especially the Matthew effect, in our and others successes. > >>> > >>> The fair thing is to see beyond that and give more opportunities to the less > >>> lucky ones, with the hope they will have the same chances of showing their > >>> capacity. Sadly we must include women in this bag, even in the 21st century. > >>> It's not always easy, but we can start by trying to put more women and/or people > >>> whose names we cannot pronounce in the conferences' list of invited speakers. > >>> > >>> > >>> Meritocracy should be one-way: the one who merits, should receive. If you > >>> believe that the ones that received did so exclusively because they merit, oh > >>> boy. Not only you are unfair, you are unscientific. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks for listening to my rant, > >>> > >>> Sebastian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 19/12/2019 0:18, Jim Kress jimkress35_+_gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35[a]gmail.com] > >>>> So, they need to ensure they have proper representation of all 26 genders in their program. > >>>> > >>>>> From the responses I have seen, including the personal attacks by Mr. Seifert, it is obvious the concept of meritocracy is dead. > >>>> That is unfortunate. It reduces these Workshops to useless displays of virtue signaling and mediocre science. > >>>> > >>>> I will not comment further. I'll have to invoke Mark Twain when he said " "Never argue with a pig. It just frustrates you and irritates the pig." > >>>> > >>>> Jim Kress > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com{:}ccl.net On Behalf Of Shahar Keinan skeinan : gmail.com > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 12:43 PM > >>>> To: Kress, Jim > >>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods in Chemistry > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sent to CCL by: Shahar Keinan [skeinan###gmail.com] I agree with Kathrin here, it is the role of the organizers to make sure that they have a balanced conference. > >>>> > >>>> And it is the role of the community to call them out when they fail to do so. > >>>> > >>>> Shahar > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12/18/19 9:30 AM, zborowsk zborowsk,chemia.uj.edu.pl wrote: > >>>>> Sent to CCL by: zborowsk [zborowsk]|[chemia.uj.edu.pl] W dniu > >>>>> 2019-12-18 11:07, Kathrin Helen Hopmann kathrin.hopmann.:.uit.no > >>>>> napisa(a): > >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: Kathrin Helen Hopmann [kathrin.hopmann..uit.no] Dear > >>>>>> Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am sorry that I may have miscounted, it seems there is 1 female > >>>>>> speaker among the 19 confirmed invited speakers (perhaps I have > >>>>>> misinterpreted some of the other name and there are more?). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know it is not easy for conference organizers to ensure a > >>>>>> gender-balanced program. But we need to talk about this problem > >>>>>> sometimes, so that we can find out how we can improve things. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> with best regards, > >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann > >>>>> Do not only talk about, simply take a part in the conference, then the > >>>>> balance will be significantly improved. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Kathrin Helen Hopmann > >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 11:27 > >>>>>> To: 'CCL Subscribers' > >>>>>> Subject: RE: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Organizers of the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I counted 19 confirmed invited speakers on your website. > >>>>>> Sadly, not a single of these seems to be a woman. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> with best regards > >>>>>> Kathrin Hopmann > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: owner-chemistry+kathrin.hopmann==uit.no^ccl.net > >>>>>>> On Behalf Of > >>>>>>> Francois Berenger mlists(a)ligand.eu > >>>>>> Sent: onsdag 18. desember 2019 06:47 > >>>>>> To: Kathrin Helen Hopmann > >>>>>> Subject: CCL: 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational Methods > >>>>>> in Chemistry > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent to CCL by: "Francois Berenger" [mlists- -ligand.eu] > >>>>>> Registration for the 8th French-Japanese Workshop on Computational > >>>>>> Methods in Chemistry (FJCMC2020) is open! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please consider joining us March 19th and 20th 2020 at Kumamoto > >>>>>> university (Japan). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We will be lucky to have presentations by many prestigious speakers: > >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/invited-speakers.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> More information can be found at: > >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/index.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The registration page is: > >>>>>> http://www.chem.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/~frjp2020/registration.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We are looking forward to meet you in Kumamoto, The > >>>>>> > >>>>>> organizers.http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www. > >>>>>> ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>>> Conferences: > >>>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/-- > >>>>> Krzysztof K. Zborowski > >>>>> Faculty of Chemistry > >>>>> Jagiellonian University in Krakow > >>>>> 2 Gronostajowa Street > >>>>> 30-387 Krakow > >>>>> Poland > >>>>> email: zborowsk-#-chemia.uj.edu.plConferences: > >>>>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/> > > >>>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ----------------- > >>>> Shahar Keinan > >>>> (919)-357-5319http://www.ccl.net/cgi- bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spamme rs.txtE-mail to subscribers:CHEMISTRY() ccl.net or use:>> > >>>> E-mail to administrators:CHEMISTRY-REQUEST() ccl.net or usehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml > >>>> > >>>> Before posting, check wait time at:http://www.ccl.net > >>>> > >>>> Job:http://www.ccl.net/jobs > >>>> Conferences:http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ > >>>> > >>>> Search Messages:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt > >>>> > >>>> RTFI:http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/To > >>> recover the email address of the author of the message, please change the > >>> strange characters on the top line to the :-: sign. You can also look up the > >>> X-Original-From: line in the mail header. E-mail to subscribers: > >>> CHEMISTRY:-:ccl.net or use:E-mail > >>> to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST:-:ccl.net or useBefore posting, check wait time at: > >>> http://www.ccl.netConferences: > >>> http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/ Search Messages: > >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/searchccl/index.shtml If your mail bounces from CCL > >>> with 5.7.1 error, check:RTFI: > >>> http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/> > > > >