This article comes from Scientific American's newest magazine. It is obsessed with progressive ideology. The title tells the story, and I am offering the story to readers as a request for their opinions. A panel must nominate a small number of candidates to be considered for the AGU Fellows Program. The winner is then chosen by a higher committee.
All of the last few nominees this year were white males. This was not because the nominees weren't qualified, but rather they decided to not award the fellowship. There were not enough finalists, and there are two reasons why the fellowship was denied. The panel was all white, which is a result implicit bias and racism. Some said that cancelling the award would send a stronger message than simply raising the issue loudly.
I feel that racism can be justified only if they prove that there is no pipeline problem in cryosphere research. This means that there may not be enough women or minorities available to select. Inequity is only when the proportion of minorities in the candidates pool is significantly lower than the result. We need to verify the credentials of all candidates. If you look at the c.v.s for the top candidates and see that they are not blind to their ethnicity or sex, it might be that there isn't racism or sexism. These awards are for mid-career candidates. The pool might be smaller for certain groups, either because they're new to the field or because they don't have the same interest.
I don't believe the award was cancelled because the recipients didn't prove to me that there was bias. If they believe that sometimes quality should prevail over diversity, they must make it clear. Only then will they be able to justify their actions without supporting data.
Let me try to sum up briefly. The article contains quotes.
Fellowship and the process
Established almost 60 years ago, the AGU fellows program recognizes outstanding contributions to their fields via scientific innovation, breakthroughs, and discoveries. This is a very high honor. According to AGU, Fellows are often external experts and can advise government agencies or other organizations outside of the sciences on request. From beginning to end, the selection process for this spring was a long and meticulous one. Peers nominate candidates, usually senior or middle-level scientists. The nominees are then divided into groups of 20 to 30 names and organized by scientific disciplines in AGU atmospheric sciences, ocean science, and planetary sciences. Each section has a committee that reviews the nominees and selects a few candidates to be sent on to an over-tiered committee. The union committee makes the final selections. Each year, the process continues in the same manner and ends with the same result: A new batch of AGUs brightest and best scientists.
The result:
Five of the top ice scientists in the country were caught up in a dilemma. The five were given a daunting task: to review candidates for the American Geophysical Unions Fellows Program, the most prestigious award of the largest earth- and space science society in the world. The group noticed a problem when it looked at the list of nominees, all nominated from peers. The list contained only white men. Helen Fricker, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography glaciologist and one of five members of the committee, stated that it was a surprise. . . The homogeneous pool was not a good idea. Fricker was named fellow in 2017 when very few women were recognized. She said that one of the reasons she was appointed to the committee was because she had been vocal about the year I was fellow. It was a sign that she felt the group needed to do more and include more women. The committee made an uneasy decision. They refused to recommend any nominees.
Frickers statement suggests, but does not explicitly state, that they are failing to get enough women the award. How many women are in this applicant pool and how does their record compare with other applicants? Other statistics are provided about the disproportionality between men and women, both in AGU fellowships as well as in Nobel Prizes and other science award awards. This is presumably due to bias. Charpentier and Doudna are two exceptions.
One thing that is worrying about this article is the fact that it states that women have been nominated for the presidency less frequently in recent years. The lowest point was 2021. What does this mean? Fricker and others believe it means that there is increasing sexism as well as racism.
These accusations are supported by the following evidence:
Suggestions for racism and sexism:
First, Fricker states that the AGU needs to hear that Fricker's bold actions are a signal that cannot be sent by lobbying.
Everyone has given us great advice about what we could do. She told E&E News that she doesn't think any of the suggestions would have had the same impact as what they ended up doing. You can't just put names forward and then tell people, "OK, we have put these names forward but this is a horrible pool. Next year, you need to do better." Nothing would change.
This seems unfair because it is against Kants' view that people should not be used as means. Here, the people who were rejected are used to send a message towards the AGU. Fricker says that's fine.
Fricker stated that it was very difficult and sad to have to make this decision because there were people on the list who were truly, amazingly worthy. They will be nominated again, and will become fellows. It's clear. It will be more fair.
If I don't believe her, please pardon me.
This is where implicit bias enters a construct that has been proven to be ineffective:
Researchers say that there are many ways to address the diversity problem, despite the fact that science awards continue to be dominated by white men. Mary Anne Holmes, a geologist, and professor emeritus, at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, says that implicit bias is a significant factor in who gets science awards. This is an unconscious bias, or prejudice, that causes people to identify more strongly and easily with members of their own social group. Awards committees or nominators are mainly composed of men or white people, which can cause an unintentional bias in who is nominated for awards or chosen for them. . . Holmes stated in an interview that we all committed acts of implicit bias daily, even if we didn't mean to be biased. She added that implicit bias training is essential for award selection committees.
Without the proper statistics, accusations of bias are hollow. They lack numbers: Number of applicants and quality. Ideally, they can be assessed without knowing about sex and ethnicity. You can try to reach out to other letter writers and ask them to send letters asking for qualified women or minorities. One case showed that this increased the number of women receiving fellowships in the earth- and planetary sciences section.
The bottom line: All the final nominees were rejected because they were white men. It is not clear if any of them will apply again or even make it to the final cut. They must present a case to support bias (implicit or explicit) and argue for diversity in the award process. Here are some facts and a solution from a courageous person.
Raymond Bradley, director of climate system research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst was one of the first to post a statement on AGU Connect's online forum. He demanded that the members of the committee resign. Bradley stated in an interview that the committee should have done what they were asked to do. That is, select the most qualified people from the nominations and then put them forward. They could also recognize that not enough nominations are being received by women and underrepresented groups. This could be a way for them to shake up their members and say "Hey, let's nominate more people!" Bradley noted that a slightly higher percentage of female nominees are selected to become fellows than the men. In a follow up email, Bradley stated that this does not support the notion of an implicit bias in the selection process. Problem lies in the low number and effort required to nominate Fellows.
Bradley points out that this suggests that proponents for more diversity should spend more effort in finding nominees and shaking up the membership.
Please weigh in.
