Tags
At the end of the day, science is people and their interactions, whether that’s face-to-face, through a journal submission system, or by email. And having a diverse array of people present a diverse array of views and doing science in a diverse set of ways is a Good Thing. And as the scientific community gradually comes to the realization that the diverse scientists in its midst put up with a heck of a lot of diverse crap in their day-to-day lives, especially those from minority groups, women, and the financially insecure, for example, there’s been what one might call an evolution towards considering people when thinking about science.
One of the major ways scientists interact is at conferences or meetings, united by a common research area or theme, and it’s at these meetings where some not-that-good stuff can happen, which has prompted many organizations (though still a small minority) to establish codes of conduct for attendees. Huzzah progress! There are also things you can do to be an ally at conferences.
It was with this floating around in my noggin that I was very interested to see the tweet below from the 2016 Animal Behavior Society:
Passed unanimously. Sends a strong message to students about ABS values. #2016ABS pic.twitter.com/vTSyD4l9id
— Courtney Fitzpatrick (@clynfitzpatrick) August 1, 2016
HB2, or the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act is a large piece of rubbish that discriminates again transfolk by preventing them from using the toilet of their gender. Like I said, utter rubbish. So it was rather heartening to see a scientific society taking a stand on a social and legal issue that affects some of its members.
So it was with some sadness that, 2 days later, the 5th International Marine Conservation Congress announced its location:
… Aaaaand #IMCC5 will be in ….. Malaysia (Sarawak, Borneo) #IMCC4
— Craken MacCraic (@Craken_MacCraic) August 3, 2016
Malaysia is rather unfriendly to LGBTQ folk (to put it mildly), and even depictions of them in film must show “good triumphing over evil.” Good grief. So needless to say, I won’t be attending. Which is sad personally, and professionally. And while I do understand the international nature of science, and the need to engage with a diverse range of scientists from across the world, I wonder if the topic of LGBTQ attendees even came up.
Is it the job or the purview of professional scientific societies to consider all these various factors when choosing their meeting location? Or should their goal be to be as international as possible regardless of the social or legal conditions of some of their members? Societies are of course welcome to have their meetings wherever they wish, but I think they should also think about what message that sends (be it positive or negative) to the full diversity of its membership.
The Lab and Field 
Pingback: Microsoft’s audio laboratory is officially the quietest place on Earth | HiTechTrader.com
In the spirit of engaging in conversation, would like to suggest another group that needs to be considered: the international scientists from countries unfriendly to LGBTQ people who happen to be LGBTQ themselves. How do they feel about unfriendly locations vs. friendly locations?
Based solely on cursory observations, it seems to me that many unfriendly countries tend to have high rates of poverty, as well. This certainly limits the ability of their scientists to travel and participate in international meetings. To what degree does “financially insecure” deserve as much consideration as other minority* issues? I.e. should these states be considered as hosts solely to give their scientists better access to international congresses?
A third complicating factor is how a country treats women. Depending on the origin of the anti-LGBTQ sentiment of a country, some unfriendly nations might also impose severe restrictions on women. Would female scientists from Europe or the Americas feel comfortable traveling to Malaysia, which declares its state religion to be Islam?
This is certainly an interesting matter to consider. What values should receive more weight than others? How does the safety of all members factor in when striving for better international representation? These issues certainly aren’t as simple as I felt when first seeing the second tweet you share above. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the matter.
*in this case, “minority” would refer to lack of socioeconomic and/or political power, regardless of whether those that fit the category only make up a small part of the population.
Indeed, a sticky issue, and as I mentioned, it’s one about trade-offs. I think one difference I should highlight is the legal status of LGBTQ folk compared to that of women. For example, there’s a large conference this week in Senegal, where being LGBT is illegal. There are degrees of suppression/oppression/repression for many groups (women, LGBTQ, races) codified in law to varying degrees.
As to which “values” should receive more weight than others, that’s one for the ethicists and sociologists to debate. I just highlighted these two cases, where I would certainly not attend and expressed my disappointment. Every individual must make these decisions for themselves, but I think that societies need to at least recognize that the issues exist (especially in a time when more large conferences try to organize LGBTQ-specific events).
Pingback: The locations of scientific meetings matters | The Lab and Field
Pingback: A collaborative effort to celebrate Pride month: the LGBTQ+ Rights Bot | The Lab and Field