In article <15F304A1970 at bio.tamu.edu>, JFRUGOLI at BIO.TAMU.EDU ("Julia
Frugoli") wrote:
> >To: womenbio at net.bio.net> >From: junekk at aol.com (JuneKK)
> >Subject: Activity in Women In...: Stigma?
> >Date: 14 Oct 1997 12:48:59 GMT
> >
> >Would anyone like to comment why it seems on many occasions, that to
> >comment
> > about the need for organizations like AWIS (or "worse" to be active in
> >one),
> > seems to infer to so many people (including many women scientists)
> >that then
> > you must NOT be necessarily so committed to SCIENCE itself??
> >
> >Why the stigma?
> >
> If it's any comfort, one of the comments at the national meeting of the
> Society for Practical and Professional Ethics was that unlike law and
> business, where belonging to an ethics society was often a plus,in
> science there was some kind of stigma involved in being involved in
> ethics. Someone pointed out that it was like belonging to AWIS 10 years
> ago-you are looked on with suspicion as not dedicated. I make it a
> point to put both these memberships on my CV, along with my science
> society memberships-I think they are part of what makes me a good
> scientist. I care about more than just the data at my bench.
>> But, my PI thinks I should never mention the ethics work, as he sees it
> as irrelevant and occasionally harmful depending on the attitude of the
> person reading the CV. I think this is sad, but I also don't want to
> work for someone who thinks a good scientist is not interested in equal
> opportunity or ethical standards. Is there anyone out there who's sat
> on a search committee or been part of a tenure decision where this came
> up, who can shed some insight? Or is this, like some of the other
> obstacles we're talked about, so subtle it's hard to point to?
