CCL: Computational Chemistry, algorithms, and the people who create them

 Sent to CCL by: Goedele Roos [groos()vub.ac.be]
 >Dear Jim,
 As a women, I agree with you...don't complain, make your choices...For me at
 this stage in my life, I prefer reading bed time stories over making nice
 presentations or attending evening board meetings.
 However, I feel that some changes need to be made, by women, men, all people. If
 you want to make women more visible, one needs to put effort in women
 (mother)-friendly facilities: virtual meetings and conferences (this should be
 no problem these days!), child care facilities on conference venues, no evening
 meetings between 5-8 pm, realizing that not only the publication output counts
 (or the number of presentations or international visits), but the ideas
 formulated in a project proposal.
 As a mother, I don't have time to work on my PR for my work. I don't have time
 to make cover pictures, nice websites, travelling to other research groups,
 going to several conferences a year...Well, I can make time, but for me my most
 important "job" now is taking care of the children. Men can engage
 more in the scientific community and they become professors, heads of
 departments.
 Every women has to decide for herself where the priorities are (scienec or
 children). But is it a fair choice? I don't think so. Therefore, some structural
 changes are needed so that invisible women in science become more visible and
 that no choice between career and children has to be made.
 I also don't believe in boycots or quota, but I strongly believe in women
 stepping up and discussing the problems they face.
 Best regards,
 Goedele
 >
 >Every person who has travelled a difficult path has a story to tell and it
 >is psychologically normal to demean the experiences of others by saying
 >how much harder it was for them, or that they "didn't whine mope or
 >complain" so why should anyone else?
 >
 >I've had a hard path, I had 4 kids pre-tenure with no clock extension and
 >I keep my level of research productivity and quality at a level I am happy
 >with - and, yeah - I selfishly feel like it was harder than that you
 >describe below?it is human  nature to try and make it into a contest of
 >who suffered worse. But I also made that choice, just like I made a choice
 >to be at an institution where I felt that gender biases were at a minimum.
 >I have actively chosen to surround myself with colleagues where this is
 >not an issue. There are other women on this list who got tenure while
 >being single mothers (which I am not), or experienced tremendous sexism
 >during the course of their careers (which I never have), and they made
 >choices and had the support of others and were smart and savvy enough to
 >be at the top of this field. Good for them! - they and your friend below
 >are great role models for the next generation of women in STEM.
 >
 >Talking about an issue is not whining. Calling out organizers for not
 >doing their job well is not moping because you weren't invited to the big
 >kids club. The idea that anyone is advocating the forced invitations of
 >women that haven't earned the right to be invited is absolutely ludicrous
 >- the whole premise of this discussion was that there are many many women
 >who are incredibly well qualified, people who have demonstrated their own
 >qualifications several times over. These are real, successful people?many
 >of them I have looked up to and have acted as mentors to me and helped me
 >to be successful in my own career by giving me the opportunity to prove
 >myself (or not -  sometimes I completely and utterly make an ass of
 >myself). Nevertheless, to presume that a person is advocating change
 >because of an attitude of entitlement is really a terrible thing to say
 >and you should be ashamed of yourself.
 >
 >While I know CCL can get on tangents, the main premise that we have openly
 >discussed is that there are still people in very important positions
 >within our discipline that aren't being very good citizens. Peer pressure
 >is a beautiful thing and while I have been disappointed that more "old
 >white guys" like Chris haven't piped up (THANK YOU CHRIS AND OTHERS FOR
 >DOING SO), perhaps this discussion will make others take notice.
 >
 >I don't think we should make this a bullying thing - but I do think that
 >if you as an organizer don't make an effort to bring in ALL qualified
 >people to the table in a public forum - then you should be held
 >accountable, because, as I stated before, there are real and important
 >ramifications of this bias?if enough people hold others accountable in
 >public and private conversations then perhaps things will change.
 >
 >
 >A
 >
 >
 >
 >Aurora Clark
 >Associate Professo
 >Department of Chemistry
 >Washington State University
 >Pullman, Wa 99164
 >Ph: 509-335-3362
 >Fax: 509-335-8867
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >On 2/17/14 8:23 AM, "Jim Kress ccl_nospam:kressworks.com"
 ><owner-chemistry,ccl.net> wrote:
 >
 >>
 >>Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [ccl_nospam[-]kressworks.com]
 >>Hi Chris and other responders,
 >>
 >>Just so you can be more aware of my context and perspective:
 >>
 >>In my career in industry, I made it a point to find and promote the most
 >>qualified engineers and scientists I could locate.  I do the same in my
 >>current nonprofit scientific research organization.  The only
 >>characteristic
 >>I care about are is the person I hire better than me (since I believe
 the
 >>best people higher better people than they to work with them).
 >>
 >>One interesting result of this philosophy was that I wound up with a
 large
 >>number of women working with me and advancing their careers as a result
 of
 >>my ensuring their superior qualifications and WORK PRODUCT were made
 well
 >>known to ALL levels of management.  I did not do this out of a sense of
 >>Political Correctness, since the really qualified, hardworking, superior
 >>female engineers and scientists were offended when they thought that was
 >>the
 >>criteria which was to be used to govern their advancement.  I did this
 >>because they EARNED it.
 >>
 >>One example is a good friend of mine.  She EARNED a BSCE, BSEE, MSEE
 from
 >>U
 >>of M Ann Arbor.  It wasn't given to her due to her gender, girth, nose
 >>size,
 >>etc.  She WORKED for it.  She pushed herself to the limit of her
 >>(extremely
 >>high) capabilities and EARNED her credentials with honors.  She then
 went
 >>into the work force and EARNED her senior management position, where she
 >>is
 >>responsible for a $1 billion of business products, WORKING her way up
 >>from a
 >>starting engineer to her current management position.  She didn't whine
 >>about gender diversity, she IGNORED it.  When people tried to use it as
 a
 >>tool on her behalf, she BERATED them for doing so.  She was, and is,
 >>defining herself by the quality of her WORK, not the physiological
 >>configuration of her genitalia.  She became, and is, the best Engineer
 and
 >>Engineering Management in her company.
 >>
 >>She did not whine, mope about and claim "discrimination".  She
 did not
 >>boycott or expect a collective of her colleagues to advance her due to
 her
 >>gender.  She refused and denigrated that approach.
 >>
 >>In fact, when I showed her the CCL emails she was incensed and disgusted
 >>by
 >>the inadequacy and refusal of the complaining women (and men) who were
 >>signing petitions, talking about how horrible the people were who
 >>disagreed
 >>with the complainers as well as the organizers of the ICQC.
 >>
 >>She has succeeded on her own merits.  When she met a barrier, she WORKED
 >>around it.  She didn't just stop, whine and complain.  She WORKED with
 the
 >>people with whom she needed to advance her career.  She didn't organize
 >>boycotts of them.
 >>
 >>Bottom line: don't whine, complain, boycott, etc. against so-called
 >>"gender
 >>inequity", work around it.  Organize your own conferences,
 Demonstrate
 >>your
 >>own abilities and superior qualifications.  Get rid of the
 "entitlement
 >>mentality" and go earn and/ or make your own place in the field.
 That's
 >>what real, successful people do.
 >>
 >>Jim
 >>
 >>
 >>-----Original Message-----
 >>> From: owner-chemistry+ccl_nospam==kressworks.com]-[ccl.net
 >>[mailto:owner-chemistry+ccl_nospam==kressworks.com]-[ccl.net] On Behalf Of
 >>Christopher Cramer cramer- -umn.edu
 >>Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:24 PM
 >>To: Kress, Jim
 >>Subject: CCL: Computational Chemistry, algorithms, and the people who
 >>create
 >>them
 >>
 >>
 >>Sent to CCL by: Christopher Cramer [cramer__umn.edu] All,
 >>
 >>   I've been a CCL member since 1989 or so. (Is that about right, Jan?)
 >>During that time, I have not posted particularly frequently; but, when
 >>I've
 >>felt that I could contribute in a productive way, I've done my best to
 >>advance our field and assist friends and colleagues by commenting on
 >>issues
 >>raised in this forum.
 >>
 >>   The recent exchanges about ICQC 2015, focusing on the lack of gender
 >>diversity in its original speaker list, and the subsequent
 back-and-forth
 >>as
 >>to whether that is a suitable topic for CCL, or even an issue to be
 >>concerned about in general, prompts me to this post. Especially, I feel
 >>obliged to reply to Jim Kress, in what I hope is a respectful fashion.
 >>
 >>   Jim, you make a living at computational chemistry, i.e., it probably
 >>pays
 >>your mortgage. Moreover you are a supporter of CCL with actual dollars;
 >>thank you for that -- your generosity benefits all of us. As such, I can
 >>understand how for you, the value of the forum is in the degree to which
 >>it
 >>helps you stay on top of the nuts and bolts of the field, and in that
 >>regard
 >>I hope that my own occasional posts on topics like partial charges,
 >>solvation  models, etc. have proven useful to you. We've also exchanged
 >>email outside of CCL, including very recently, in what I hope has always
 >>been a cordial fashion.
 >>
 >>   However, I now hope that you will accept that I, as an academic who
 is
 >>charged in part with training the NEXT generation of computational
 >>chemists,
 >>may have a more expansive view of what is appropriate for CCL than your
 >>own.
 >>> From my point of view, if there is something that is hindering the
 most
 >>efficient progress in our field, even if that "something"
 might fall into
 >>the dreaded area of "social science", then attempting to
 address it
 >>through
 >>CCL is not merely appropriate, it is worthy of advocacy!
 >>
 >>   You (and others) raised the question of whether the selection
 criteria
 >>of
 >>the ICQC 2015 organizers was known, whether anyone had contacted them,
 >>etc.
 >>Actually, one of the organizers posted on a separate mailing list
 (devoted
 >>to molecular dynamics), that the 26 male speakers had been selected from
 a
 >>slate of 27 (evidently, the one woman had failed to respond). He was
 >>shocked
 >>that anyone might think that inviting 3.8% female speakers might be
 >>regarded
 >>as inadequate. He went on to note that upon reviewing the end result, he
 >>then solicited suggestions from IAQMS members for some remaining
 speakers,
 >>asking in particular for women. Certainly, if _I_ were a woman, I'd be
 >>thrilled to know that my chief qualification for a subsequent invitation
 >>was
 >>not my science, but a desire to achieve gender balance after the
 "real"
 >>speakers were selected. For the record, you can find this post at
 >>https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1402&L=molecular-dynamic
 >>s-
 >>news&F=&S=&P=13069
 >>
 >>   Jim, I've trained roughly 100 undergraduate, graduate, and
 postdoctoral
 >>co-workers. I admit that it pains me that I KNOW that the women members
 of
 >>that group will face discrimination that will make it much harder for
 them
 >>to achieve their full potential than will be the case for my former male
 >>co-workers. I say that not because I subscribe to a belief in
 "evil" (as
 >>you
 >>put it), but rather to an acceptance of the extremely well documented
 >>phenomenon of implicit bias. We are all creatures of our culture and,
 >>worldwide, there is a culture in science that works against women that
 >>reflects hundreds of years of history and tradition. There is a lot of
 >>scholarship in this area, but the most recent example was published in
 >>PNAS
 >>in 2012 and showed that, when presented with resumes for lab managers
 that
 >>were in every way identical except for the name of the fictitious
 >>individual, scientists (men AND women) ranked the man significantly more
 >>highly than the woman and offered "him" a !
 >> starting salary significantly higher than that offered to
 "her". These
 >>weren't "evil" people, they were just people formed by their
 own
 >>backgrounds
 >>and experiences. The PNAS study is available at
 >>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109
 >>
 >>   But, let me come back to the bottom line, Jim, which I suspect you
 >>consider important. What if it's a woman who has the next big
 breakthrough
 >>idea that advances our field dramatically? And, what if she can't get
 that
 >>idea recognized as quickly precisely because implicit bias slows
 >>appreciation for her scholarship? You'll suffer, too, as you won't be
 able
 >>to offer your clients a service that you otherwise would have become
 more
 >>rapidly aware of. We all like to believe that cream rises to the top,
 but,
 >>in all honesty, "it's not what you do, it's who you know" goes
 a long way
 >>in
 >>science, too. Aurora Clark has already posted eloquently here on the
 topic
 >>of how proactive steps to increase diversity propagate to the next
 >>generation, so I won't belabor this point.
 >>
 >>   Returning to the specifics, I've been around in this field a long
 >>time. I
 >>think that I can legitimately claim to have earned a certain level of
 >>experience to comment. Do I think that the International Academy of
 >>Quantum
 >>Molecular Science is ridiculously dominated by old white guys? (I say
 this
 >>as an old white guy.) Well, yes, I do. Have I attended ICQC meetings and
 >>been struck by the cronyism in the field and the repetitive speakers
 >>rosters? Um, yes, I have. Happily, I am at a stage in my career and a
 >>level
 >>of privilege that I can say suicidal things like this and not. really.
 >>give
 >>a damn. But the call for a boycott by my colleagues Professors Carter,
 >>Gagliardi, and Krylov was not motivated by a one-time gaffe - it
 followed
 >>years and years of frustration, and the ICQC 2015 speakers list was the
 >>straw that broke their respective colloquial camels' backs.
 >>
 >>   You called this entire discussion "politically correct".
 Hmm. Politics
 >>is
 >>the means by which groups of people come to collective decisions. Taken
 at
 >>literal face value, politically correct sounds like a good thing to me.
 In
 >>the United States, once it was politically correct to abolish slavery,
 >>provide women voting rights, eliminate school segregation, eliminate
 >>anti-miscegenation laws, and, most recently, secure the marriage rights
 of
 >>our gay and lesbian citizens. If advocating for gender equality in
 science
 >>puts me in the same category as earlier advocates for any of those
 >>positions, call me proud to have them as compatriots.
 >>
 >>   Some full disclosures:  (1) I'm married to one of the three women
 >>signatories of the original call for a boycott. I'm ridiculously proud
 to
 >>have her as a partner. (2) As an Associate Dean, my portfolio includes
 >>responsibility for trying to increase the representation of women and
 >>underrepresented minorities in my college's graduate students, postdocs,
 >>and
 >>faculty. I care about that passionately. (3) The ICQC organizer to whom
 I
 >>refer to above is a member of the editorial board for the journal for
 >>which
 >>I am Editor in Chief. Small world, no? (4) I write posts that are way
 too
 >>long. Sorry.
 >>
 >>Chris
 >>--
 >>Christopher J. Cramer
 >>Elmore H. Northey Professor and
 >>  Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
 >>University of Minnesota
 >>Department of Chemistry and
 >>  College of Science & Engineering
 >>Minneapolis, MN 55455-0431
 >>Phone:  (612) 624-0859 (Chemistry)
 >>Phone:  (612) 624-9371 (CSE)
 >>--------------------------
 >>Mobile: (952) 297-2575
 >>Email:  cramer:umn.edu
 >>Twitter:  :ChemProfCramer
 >>Website:
 >>http://pollux.chem.umn.eduhttp-:-//www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messageh
 >>ttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt>;
 >
 >
 >
 _____________________________
 Goedele Roos, PhD
 Department of General Chemistry http://we.vub.ac.be/~algc/
 VIB, Department of Structural Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel | http://www.structuralbiology.be/
 Brussels Center for Redox Biology | http://redox.vub.ac.be/
 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Building G, room 10G714
 Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels,Belgium
 phone: +32 2 6293312
 fax: +32 2 6293317
 E-mail: groos---vub.ac.be