/sci/ - Science & Math

But this supposed paper he wrote is missing on the internet. It's almost impossible to find it online. Where the fuck is it? Angewandte Chemie states that they rejected it, the paper not representing their opinions "properly".

Turns out that the savior is none other than r/ASCI on reddit. Like it or not, the subreddits that are serious, do get their shit done. Link that is given:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/anie.202006717

Is facilitated by none other than best girl.

>>11801052
Yes, obviously, people have been pointing out for decades that science should be about ideas and research not tick boxing diversity hires and protecting peoples' feelings.
But never apologise or they smell blood and double down on the retardation.

The whole idea of diversity hiring is both racist and sexist and is founded on a false premise of equality of outcome not opportunity. It is guaranteed to penalise those better qualified and suited to a task, eventually the diversity hire will be resentful of those who actually are qualified and usually redirect their anger in petty self perpetuating ways.

But that's the real thing. The "gender discrimination" (if it can even be called that) is literally one of the smallest parts of the article.

The piece he has written is a full review of all the advancements (and potential misfires on the future of organic chemistry). I don't know jack shit on the parts relating to the unification of biology and chemistry, but the logical arguments( to which he has supplied data) is some of the most alarming shit I have read.

He speaks on the transformation of universites from academic to bureaucratic, the increase in the fraudulence of data produced, the increased lack of foundational knowledge possessed by university students, who can't carry out basic high school chemistry tests, the trends of hiring inefficient "university contractors", the malpractices in china concerning their country being a constant output of invalid "research", and yes finally the "gender discrimination".

I swear to fucking god, the only reason that the board members resigned is most likely from the alarm of how much of a redpill is paper is on the malpractices that take place. Rather than addressing the problem, they instead run away, and delete the paper throughout the internet.

And that's why, to any university students who are on the board and come on this thread, as I have no first-hand experience, I want to know how much of this shit is true, and how valid Tomas' points and criticisms are.

>>11801107
I recall some law someone thought up, I forget the attribution, but "bureaucracy always increases unless acted upon by an external force".

>>11801052
>organic chemist
>calls others frauds
ask yourself what is the theoretical foundations of organic synthesis?
>tfw your entire field is just patchwork exceptions and human overfitting
>tfw your field isn't making progress because your field was build on fraud

>>11801052
read the article. not my field, but most of it is applicable to my field of research nearly literally.
when you read it, it seems clear that it is going to be kind of unpalatable to the chinese. precisely the dominant group in that publication as of lately and that particular field of research in particular. so probably the sexist stuff is a stinky red herring. mainly since the meetoo shit is already more or less over and out of date taking into account later events. so, I believe it is clearly some political reckoning by some chinese faction of the inorganic chem people.

>>11801388
let me add something: in all fairness, while everything else in that article is applicable to my field, I have to say that the chinese part doesn't. they have passed from writing pure undiluted rubbish about 10 years ago, to make most decent high quality research that has nothing to envy to westerners now. I think in this particular case is related to their seriousness in space exploration (human in particular).

>>11801371
The complexity of organic chemistry is simply irreducible and explodes. The theoretical foundation is QM.

>>11801107
>He speaks on the transformation of universites from academic to bureaucratic, the increase in the fraudulence of data produced, the increased lack of foundational knowledge possessed by university students, who can't carry out basic high school chemistry tests

The worst part is this is also true of private industry, as well.

The lemmings are running headlong off a cliff, and the only thing that upsets them is seeing other people not following suit.

>>11801052
This is really well written. The controversial topics he mentions are less than 300 words. I wish I had more professors like this in my uni. All of them thought like this man, but no one had the balls to write it in a journal.

How do we defeat bureaucracy?

>>11801052
not that paper but related:
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

>>11801075
Not to mention it puts undeserved suspicion on legit hires who are part of the diversity group even though their merit stands for itself.

is bureaucracy a symptom of insuffcient competition?
The same as large monolithic corps getting bogged down in procedure having forgotten the cut and thrust nature of competition.

>>11801073
The article is not about how women and minorities are destroying the scientific community and lowering standards, is talking about how the focus on grants for teachers and students as clients are turning academia into a shitshow, and diversity hires are only part of the problem, not even necesarily the cause but maybe the sympton of something greater.

Although I still my doubts about using papers as platforms for opinions(at the very least they should be under their own category), this suppresion seems to speak more to others.

Now, from my point of view(biology) I have never experienced any problem with diversity hires or quotas, mainly because it's a field that has almost 50/50 parity so it's barely noticeable and women tend to reach as high positions at the same rate as men(although you notice that it's a new trend, older department tend to be more male-dominated), so I haven't been able to see if there is an actual difference in performance.

>>11801542
>https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

what I like the most of that paper is at the end of the abstract:

>These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM tenure-track assistant professorships.

so: women are favoured and arguing otherwise is sexist

>>11801542
>>11801763
STEM is fucked...without obsessional male autism.

>>11801611
>biologist
>can’t detect that women contribute less, have less quantitative proficiency, are less likely to carry research projects and more likely to gain standing in their field by clinging onto large projects with high author count
the curse of the low iq

>>11801052
I really appreciate that you made this thread.

My field, AI, is in flux right now; most old methods have become obsolete to the point that older members of the community are, in my opinion, actually impeding progress by trying to shoehorn their obsolete methods into newer systems. I haven’t noticed any big problems due to affirmative action in the field, but I’m in Europe.

My guess is that these problems are bigger in the U.S. due to more rabid neoliberalism (privatization, focus on profit, etc.).

>>11801833
>/sci/ poster
>can't interpret scientific findings without bending them to their political views
the curse of the /scipol/cel

>>11801407
>read the article. not my field, but most of it is applicable to my field of research nearly literally.

Ah that's good to hear. Happy to see that not everyone wishes to dig the Chinese into a grave.

>>11801573
I'd have to argue against that point actually. Tomas' paper (along with recent trends) show that competition over limited research funding, is what is causing the decrease in journal quality, as well as the hiring of University contractors.

If you haven't read the paper, do so anon. It is extremely well written, being very precise and to the point.

Dude has this absolute abomination of a figure.

I don't give a fuck what you think about his views, this figure is just a poorly designed mess.

>>11801388
You are not wrong The Chinese have sponsored "diversity" hires to put a wrench in Western academics for two decades, just like how middle eastern oil sponsors "green peace" and the sierra club. Whiles sending thousands of "student" spies that steal research they aren't even hiding it. China's whole moon growing expedition was straight up theft from the West and they didn't even deny it an still couldn't complete it. There was mass federal investigation in to the Chinese triad in the early 90s the amount of money they had in various charities caused the government to "close" the case. They also found that basically any Chinese related had ties to the state government. There is a reason why there is Chinese "restaurants" in war zones.

However since history repeats we also will see spectacular failure in the Chinese state their country is going to split this century, while the Chinese are malignant they are also very incompetent when comes to following through because they all want the singular glory. China is already multi-cultural on top of that and there is a lot of animosity between provinces because racially and culturally they differ a lot. The North and South China has always been considered unofficially separate. When the China flu was kicking off there was Chinese talking about how the Hubei province people has always been seen as the over the top "ass kissers".

>>11802738
I don't post on /pol/

>>11803864
>competition over limited research funding is what is causing the decrease in journal quality
Sounds like there’s too little slack in the system: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/12/studies-on-slack/

>>11801073
>ade several senior sceintific members associated with the Angewandte Chemie Board (of canada).
>Several sites claim that the piece he wrote is sexist trash. They c
>best girl
I found out today that she is a communist and did some weird paper on a hebrew god aswell as an essay on why stalin is god.
Whatever free papers.

>>11806651
>I found out today that she is a communist and did some weird paper on a hebrew god aswell as an essay on why stalin is god.
thats why she's best girl

>>11801052
>>11801073
thanks for posting the article.
just got started reading it.
>impact of information technology
there's a drawback he doesn't mention: searches of the literature can be monitored by others.
in the library with the paperbound catalogue of CAS numbers, no one knew what i was searching for. with SciFinder, someone can know.

>>11801052
>Angewandte Chemie Board
I thought I was the only other person on this board that kept up with this. What the fuck bros

>>11801388
The "fraudulent data" portion, especially in regards to organic chemistry, is almost a direct barb at the Chinese. An absolute deluge of completely fucking garbage useless papers in the field are Chinese.

>>11801052
Im glad a prof at my school is being recognized on this board kek, my uni isnt known amongst students for beinh the best for science. I dont know much about his opinions but he is an impressive researcher in the synthetic orgabic chemistry of opiates. I doubt he would let me volunteer in his lab since im in biotech and not pure chem but maybe one day

Check out this article and the comments for what people in the field think: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/06/08/not-winning-friends-not-influencing-people

The reaction is generally negative, but not just for the opinion on minorities, but other stuff like the relationship between supervisor and student, and it being a generally low quality article with figures like this >>11803890

I haven't read the new article but Hudlicky's previous works have had more substantial criticisms of Ochem: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/12/99_yield_that_friends_is_deception

>>11803985

You post on sci which is pretty much the same.

>>11806651
Also she's fatter now

>>11803985
>I don't post on /pol/
good. lurk moar

>>11807224
But the original article is about much more than that, granted using a paper to express what are basically opinions is distatefull, but the part about diversity hires and the "master-apprentice" are just part of a bigger critique.

>>11807569
based frog girl

>>11803967
>You are not wrong The Chinese have sponsored "diversity" hires etc...
I don't care.
the chinese ((science)) was not even crap up to about a decade or so. it was exponentially worse at times when they introduced premiums for publishing, which accelerated the copy/paste and spreading of shit. you couldn't even be bothered to read the abstract if the author was a chang, wang, zang, whatever. notable exceptions: those working on the west (us uk).

but since then something has changed, because they are now producing in house high quality research. but not in every area. it seems to me that there is a pattern: the areas where they have become serious and made the house cleaning are directly related to very specific technological areas, like information/comunication (classical or quantum) and space (not astrophysics in general: space/solar). probably, for some reason, inorg chem synth is not a top priority for them and continue to spread shit around, and that's what was pointed out in the article, and that's likely what prompted the attack, not the already demode' metoo whining.

these are facts. nothing to do with those chink conspiracies of yours.

>>11806651
>I found out today that she is a communist and did some weird paper on a hebrew god aswell as an essay on why stalin is god.
so a tankie. as long as she isn't woke cancer it's fine.

>>11807579
>granted using a paper to express what are basically opinions is distatefull
I don't understand this criticism. The piece was about the direction of the field, it was not about a scientific investigation. It was honoring Seebach's similar missive from 30 years ago, it was an update from a book Hudlicky wrote. It wasn't a 'paper' in the usual sense, and how could anyone think that it was such a thing? It was obviously an opinion piece, not masquerading as "science".

>>11807224
>99_yield_that_friends_is_deception
Fellow /sci/ poster, just like that I can tell you were too lazy to even read the paper. Those "previous works" were what he specifically talked about on his controversial piece. Onyl thing is, his critiques ( which from the replies do seem to have some merit) are very sharp and precise. It's much easier for universities to call something sexist, when the piece barely even talks of sexist shit.

Read it anon. It's extremely well-written.

>>11806851
>https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/12/studies-on-slack/
Ah that's a good point. someone could put you on a watch list for suspicious research or simply copy all your sources and research them for themselves simply undercutting your research, the latter seems likely to happen given the competition for ideas

>>11807635

It's distasteful, yes you can do it, yes it can happen and sometimes it might be interesting, but those are not really justifications, if you want to do something close to that do a metanalysis of the field with a load of articles and clear criticism and comparison of the concepts, not something as holistic as "chinese were bad but now are good" and if you want to say that bureaucracy and grant funding are becoming a hurdle to scientific progress use actual quotes or data.

Of course, is not easy and doing it in that way might even be counterproductive and slow in some regards, but it's far more preferable than opening the gates and sacrificing rigor in the name of expression. If I want to read these kinds of things I go to nature, if I want to read a metanalysis I go to physics life reviews and If I want to read actual research I go to the american journal of biochemistry. In this way we can avoid turning all of those sources into what would basically amount to blogspots, since it's a slippery slope of the legal kind(if you allow someone to publish that, why wouldn't you allow someone else to do the same?).

>>11807724
>hudlicky is chemistry's tom cotton

>>11807579
>>11807697

Alright I read the paper. Sure he has some good points however He's totally lacking citations in the sections on diversity hires, teaching students, and universities as corps. Doesn't matter how right he is if for all I know he's pulling these claims out his ass. For that alone it shouldn't have been published, even if he was lauding women as the saviours of Ochem.

His comments on teaching are clearly anecdotal and since that's the case here's my anecdote: I did a small scale (~5mg) acid-base extraction a few weeks a go. I was taught how to by my supervisor. HRMS and nmr identified my product where a combustion analysis would have obliterated it.
The free time of a professor to teach their students correlates to seniority and size of the lab group. Besides, postdocs do a good enough job I think.

Basically I don't care what he has to say if he isn't even going to bother to cite his claims.

>>11807812
if you needed help, from anyone, to exract 5mgs, you're a moron.
if you needed help to distill 3mgs you're everyfucking body.
Hudlicky invoked Oppolzer, rigor. Talk to Scott Denmark or Bob Bergman's retired ass.
>Besides, postdocs do a good enough job I think.
lol and that girl at UCLA died, pat harran got a sweet deal, no felony.

>>11807733
the only senator trying to bring attention to the coronavirus in the early days.

>>11807863
what?

>>11807812
what would he have to cite? those parts are simply logical. preferential treatment of one group does mean disadvantaging the others. it is anti-meritocratic because it privileges traits that have nothing to do with competence. since he encountered at least one ta that wouldn't even be able to pass the class they're teaching that is evidence of it being out there. the fact you can become a ta without there being a proper evaluation would suggests this is the problem. universities are corporations by definition and therefore profit seeking entities. this can be at odds with scientific endeavor.

>>11807883
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/the-senator-who-saw-the-coronavirus-coming/

>>11807904
good for him, he did a good thing
troops in the streets, no quarter
lel

>>11802661
>My field, AI, is in flux right now; most old methods have become obsolete to the point that older members of the community are, in my opinion, actually impeding progress by trying to shoehorn their obsolete methods into newer systems.
care to give an example on this?

>>11807840
I agree that extraction is easier than distillation, but he's the one that bundled them and crystallisation together.
>Oppolzer
>His one experience of a professor teaching him a hard technique means that professors as a whole now are poorer at teaching students.
I mean, he's probably right but the quality of his argument isn't good enough, it's literally just "kids these days" which is as old as plato, and plato wasn't a good chemist. Plus he could at least suggest something he thinks could improve the situation. Reduce academic's teaching requirements? Put a limit on number of students per professor? Pay students better so they feel more comfortable slaving away 12 hours a day in the lab?

>Patrick Harran
First I hear of this. That's some insane levels of negligence. Still, this is an isolated case that may or may not be representative of the whole. But you're right, some postdocs can't be trusted to supervise the babies.

>>11807900
>what would he have to cite
Statistics showing an increase in women in Chemistry, ideally linking this increase to preferential treatment, rather than being purely meritocratic after a rebalancing of anti-preferential treatment.

>>11807922
>Statistics showing an increase in women in Chemistry, ideally linking this increase to preferential treatment, rather than being purely meritocratic after a rebalancing of anti-preferential treatment.
well there is preferential treatment in admissions, it's called affirmative action. this is common knowledge. any preferential treatment as explained does mean disadvantaging groups who aren't privy to it, it's just how this works. if you advantage one group like this you will disadvantage the others. but i see your point, he should've provided some studies like this one:
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360

>>11807922
bob coates gave marty burke 4 decades of glassware and you have no fucking idea what that means.
clown ass retard, talking about plato.

>>11807408
this doesn’t make any sense
>>11807571
i’ve been posting on this site for almost a decade, suck my cock faggot

>>11807938
That's the only point I feel like arguing, even in the section about universities becoming corporations, which most people would agree with, he provides no evidence.

>>11807941
And EJ Corey gave Jason Altom a reason to kill himself. There are amazing professors and not so amazing ones. What's your point? I'll admit that plato was a bit of a shitpost but the point stands, Hudlicky gives no evidence or citation that, on the whole, the skills of chemists have declined due to a shift away from a master/apprentice relationship.
Like Hudlicky I just want a little more rigor in the literature.

>>11808005
your post is incoherent
>hudlicky provides nothing of rigor
>I like hudlicky, who is rigorous.

>>11808005
>That's the only point I feel like arguing, even in the section about universities becoming corporations, which most people would agree with, he provides no evidence.
that's fair.

>>11808024
I'm saying he's being a little hypocritical, given his work on yield inflation in the literature and saying that there should be more rigor, while publishing these claims without hard evidence. (My post should have read "I, as well as Hudlicky, want more rigor...")

I take back my comments on EJ Corey, but he's still relevant, he would've had something like 15 students at a time and which doesn't leave much time to teach them individually, but clearly they've learned well enough to do good chemistry.

As a contemporary example look at Phil Baran's lab, who pump out shitloads of good work, and his students have directly commented against Hudlicky's master/apprentice claims: https://openflask.blogspot.com/2020/06/realities-of-management-style.html

(yeah this single example isn't any better but I'm not publishing this to angewante)

>>11807913
I was referring specifically to the divide between the old symbolic approaches and the new statistical/connectionist (mostly neural network) approaches. Systems that combine these approaches are sometimes called “hybrid”. Such systems can work quite well, but they’re inevitably outperformed by a more connectionist approach that uses more computing power (think Stockfish vs AlphaZero), so the path towards AGI is connectionism leveraging increasing amounts of computation. http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html

Older academics who have made a career with the symbolic approach don’t like becoming obsolete, so, as I said, they try to shoehorn the symbolic approach into things, resulting in misguided opinions such as these, from the most prominent AI researcher in my country: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2020/05/13/far-ai-can-see-what-we-still-need-build-human-level-intelligence

Gary Marcus is an example of a very fervent proponent of the symbolic approach. Noam Chomsky is similar.

By the way, connectionism doesn’t preclude the symbolic approach, since our brains also use symbols (e.g., when we do algebra) but they do it on a connectionist substrate.

>>11808062
anon seriously?
I spoke to Baran 15 years ago.
He said 'if you want to go to Harvard". lol no

>>11801052
https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/08/controversial-essay-at-german-chemistry-journal-leads-to-suspensions/
The absolute state holy shit

>>11808091
This argument is going nowhere, but I'm curious about your opinion. Do you agree with Hudlicky that the master/apprentice relationship is either necessary or optimal to train grad students well? What proportion of this shift away is due to faculty changes vs. culture changes?

>>11801052
I can't actually find any refutation of the essay at all the only thing they seem to focus on is the small comment on women and a sparse few on the aprenticeship but they've outright ignored everything else

>>11808135
>Do you agree ... that the master/apprentice relationship is either necessary or optimal to train grad students well?
not that guy, but yes. In a field with as much voodoo as ochem, the master/apprentice route is especially important, since much of the success in the lab is about knowing unwritten tricks and habits that have taken years to develop.
You could try to develop your own habits, but it puts you at a steep disadvantage against your peers, and not many PI's will have patience for that sort of unscientific noise

>>11808225
I should have been more specific. I agree with all that, but “an unconditional submission of the apprentice to his/her master.” as Hudlicky calls for seems to me an extreme claim. An undoubting acceptance seems just as unscientific.
Regardless, I will sleep now, and not worry to much about it. Ultimately I don't he should be cancelled for this, and his heart is in the right place, but I don't think the article should've passed review as is. Has Seebach said anything on the debacle?

>>11808276
>An undoubting acceptance seems just as unscientific.
that's more an issue in the biological sciences. Bunch of spineless rabbits.

>>11808290
Aren't there more women in biological sciences than any other fields?

>>11808295
Yes, it has a 50/50 gender split, and I think that quite a part of the women are usually in zoology, botany and inmunology.

>>11801052
it is pretty true from my experiences, especially in STEM subjects

>>11806963
Yes its a funded campaign. It slows down our research rate, bc we have to deal with their crap. I bet the chinese don't use/cite chinese research.

Also why they fund students to come to the west at extraordinary expense - access to our research.

>>11807941
Actually I can't get over this. You're right I have no fucking idea what that means, Burke didn't study under Coates, and what did this have to do with the conversation?

>>11801052
Fuck you too, then, shithead. Saged.

>>11809726
Bump

>>11807812
Fellow anon, he has cited an example of diversity hires. Read the paper properly, and look through his notes.

"An example of focusing on “underrepresented minorities” can be seen in the recently established “Power Hour” at Gordon Research Conferences.While this effort is commendable in order to increase the participation of women in science it diminishes the contributions bymen (or any other group). Universities have established various centers for “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion”, complete with mandatory seminars and training. These issues have influenced hiring practices to the point where the candidate’s inclusion in one of the preferred social groups may override his or her qualifications".

For universities acting as corps, isn't the deletion and slander of his piece not enough to prove that scinece is being threatened by profit-minded individuals?