Hell yeah

Evil monkey's pissed off about how scientists are viewed and treated. To hell with the nerdy sterotypes, the unrealistic portrayals in the movies and TV. Who are we really?

So who am I? I'm tenacious. I can be ground down but never stopped. Repeated setbacks fuel my desire to overcome an obstacle and solve the problem. I am calculating; after dusting myself off, I plan a new approach before trying again. I show up to work every day because ultimately my job gives me a chance to improve lives. It isn't about money but the excitement of discovering something completely new and the prospect of alleviating human suffering. Sure I can withdraw into my work, oblivious to the world around me. But isn't that a good thing? Lives are improved by informed experts who fully immerse themselves in a problem. Does that make me arrogant? Maybe. Any headstrong person who speaks with well-earned authority can labeled "arrogant". Force-of-will is what it takes to succeed in this racket and to foster progress. And that is a good trait to have. Problems only get solved when tackled head-on.

Much more good stuff at the link. Preach it, brotha.

More like this

This is a piece from last year that is kinda resonating today, so I'm gonna share it with you.  --PalMD As I've written before, I love my work. You really have to love medicine to do it, because, contrary to popular belief, it's a lousy way to get rich. I'm not starving or anything, but there are…
All the monotheistic religions have a problem known as Theodicy or The Problem of Evil. Simply put, it's the question “How can there be evil and suffering in the world?”. The religions in question posit that their god knows everything that happens, so he isn't ignorant of the shit that's going on.…
Of course you haven't. What a silly question. I'm the only one who knows about this unearthed gem. Now what of Science and The Simpsons? We've already blogged here at The World's Fair about classroom Simpsons and science utility, but of course that can only be a start. Let's do this slow and…
Some teachers were at a workshop in Atlanta to talk about their experiences teaching evolution, and how to overcome some of the problems. They've had it worse than I have. Some students burst into tears when a high school biology told them they'd be studying evolution. Another teacher said some…

Heh...this is a fun follow-on to the article in Slate yesterday, which largely attributed libertine sexuality among the 20th century greats (from Mme. Curie through Feynman) to the same kind of confident(optimistic) persistence...I'll leave the conjectured correlation to other aspects of the fundamentalist/science divide to readers. Happy Friday!

By montpellier (not verified) on 10 Mar 2006 #permalink

I find that although male scientists tend to be treated in the fashion of absent-minded Dr. Nerdy McDork by Hollywood, female scientists tend to be young and attractive. Even when they appear plain and wearing big glasses with their hair done up, when it's time to dress for the party, they look like The Bachelorette.

These are female scientists as portrayed in the movies:

Congo (Laura Linney)
Contact (Jodie Foster)
Gorillas in the Mist (Sigourney Weaver)
Jurassic Park (Laura Dern)
Medicine Man (Lorraine Braco)
Outbreak (Rene Russo)
The Saint (Elisabeth Shue)
Sphere (Sharon Stone)
Tears of the Sun (Monica Belluci)
Twister (Helen Hunt)
Volcano (Ann Heche)

Hot, hot, HOT!

Heck, even that scientist chick in Tremors was young and hot. And don't get me started on all the CSI babes.

Clearly, we men got the short end of the stereo-stick.

....or did we? :)

I won't go as far as Bora and say I'm hot, but I can assure you that my wife is hot.

She tells me that I looked hot when I was drawing a plasmid construct map and helping her purify a poly-His-tagged protein from E. coli lysate on a Ni-NTA column. (Insert joke about her now helping me with my column).

Oh, my. I tend to also be a naive hero worshiper.

Someone once told me that more times than not, such unilateral dedicated individuals are arrogant, selfish, insensitive to others, have a superiority complex and are generally a misfit.

Thus the need for moving through many test cases to find the right partner if they ever do.

Oh, my goodness, I covered my ears and heard between two fingers as they continued---

Power corrupts, whether it is driven by economic or intellectual wealth, to one extent or another. It is not the rare case that the first longsuffering mate that sacrificed for the pinnacle achieved is cast off for the next once the accolades begin.

Polly

[Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart--Anne Frank]

By Polly Anna (not verified) on 11 Mar 2006 #permalink

What about the Michael Crichton stereotype. Crichton's heros are individualistic unorthodox scientists that fight against the conservative dogmatic establishment. In his stories the renegade is always right.

Every scientist would like to be an Einstein but very few of the scientists that challenge the consensus turn out to right.

His heros might make exciting books and movies but only add to the false stereotypes that are already there. They also lead to further misunderstandings of science.

His view is summed up in this quote.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it
isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

By Chris Noble (not verified) on 11 Mar 2006 #permalink

Michael Crichton is so full of sh*t as to qualify as an anti-authority on science. Besides his public statements, I've read a few of his books, and the plots consistently depended on their scientists being utter idiots, fools, and/or nutjobs.

By David Harmon (not verified) on 15 Mar 2006 #permalink