Being human is good for science

June 18, 2015

Sir Tim Hunt made some spectacularly inept remarks about women in science, which are rightly being thoroughly ridiculed. He taught me as an undergraduate, and I have run into him over the years since in various forums; and in my experience he is not sexist. So maybe it is worth thinking a bit more deeply about what he said. On both the points he made, I think that he is wrong (please don’t cry, Tim).

First, he argued that romantic relationships in the lab (which are not always heterosexual) are a distraction, and thus damaging to science. This plays to the curious idea that the best scientists are robots. Progress in science depends on creativity, imagination, inspiration, serendipity, obsession, distraction and all the things that make us human. The best science happens in precisely the environments where people fall in and out of love. You can’t have one without the other.

Second, he argued that women take criticism too personally, and that this is obstructive to the pursuit of truth. I agree that the best and most exciting discussions in science occur when all ideas get fully examined from every angle. I also agree that taking criticism of ideas personally prevents such discussions from happening. However, in my experience, men are on average much worse offenders than women on this count. Men who can’t separate their ideas from their egos do something considerably more obstructive than bursting into tears. They doggedly argue for more and more extreme versions of their idea long after it has been found to be totally untenable. They don’t even listen to the criticism. This is far more stifling to progress than tears.

We all have our insecurities. They are also part of being human, which is necessary for being a good scientist. We all respond to our insecurities in different ways. We need to build a research culture that supports and nurtures diversity, because that’s where the best ideas are born.

Ottoline Leyser
Director and professor of plant development
Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge

What Hunt said was wrong. It should be of no more consequence than saying that the world is flat. His comments tell us about a 72-year-old man; they do not reflect today’s science culture. While there is nothing to be complacent about and much to change, we can safely treat these remarks with the contempt they deserve and quickly get back to the real job.

Jim Sta

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford will host a homeopathy conference next month

Charity says Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is ‘naive’ to hire out its premises for event

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham