Adam Ruben has a very entertaining as well as thought-provoking post on Science Careers in which he explores the "sexiness" of scientists and their research. Ruben's motivation is an article published by Business Insider showcasing a list of the "50 Sexiest Scientists". One of Ruben's former college buddies happens to be number 28 on that list.
Ruben then asks whether it's fair to highlight a side of scientists - that Business Insider article got 3 million page views - that detracts from their principal talents as a scientist. This issue has often been bandied about in the blogosphere. A few years ago someone (I forget who) posted a list of what he considered to be the top ten attractive female science bloggers, complete with photos from their blogs. The article naturally drew a lot of ire from the listed bloggers which was understandable; even now female bloggers often have a hard time being taken seriously as scientists and intellectuals and the last thing they want is a gratuitous emphasis on their looks that can be a further setback to their efforts.
Faced by a huge negative outcry the aforementioned blogger took the post down, but both he and Adam Ruben have a point. Scientists are human beings just like others (yes, it's true) and there's no harm in occasionally drawing attention to some of the non-scientific aspects of their personalities. Now whether to focus specifically on looks is something that could be open for debate but it does not detract from the more general point. In fact I think that most scientists would not object to being praised for their non-scientitific traits as long as the world amply recognized their scientific abilities; the main problem in publishing a list of attractive female bloggers is that you are making things harder for people who are already having a hard time getting scientific credibility. The fact though is that "sexiness" in one form or another is a quality that's at least implicitly coveted by many of us. As Ruben says,
Sexy looks are thus in a sense an extension of our desire to dress up our work, science and persona in ways that render both us and our research more attractive to the world at large. Ruben ends - in jest of course (although who knows...) - with a cogent list of research practices that could possibly make your "Sexiness Index" shoot up like a Minuteman missile. I am still thinking whether to laugh or cry over the last one.
Ruben then asks whether it's fair to highlight a side of scientists - that Business Insider article got 3 million page views - that detracts from their principal talents as a scientist. This issue has often been bandied about in the blogosphere. A few years ago someone (I forget who) posted a list of what he considered to be the top ten attractive female science bloggers, complete with photos from their blogs. The article naturally drew a lot of ire from the listed bloggers which was understandable; even now female bloggers often have a hard time being taken seriously as scientists and intellectuals and the last thing they want is a gratuitous emphasis on their looks that can be a further setback to their efforts.
Faced by a huge negative outcry the aforementioned blogger took the post down, but both he and Adam Ruben have a point. Scientists are human beings just like others (yes, it's true) and there's no harm in occasionally drawing attention to some of the non-scientific aspects of their personalities. Now whether to focus specifically on looks is something that could be open for debate but it does not detract from the more general point. In fact I think that most scientists would not object to being praised for their non-scientitific traits as long as the world amply recognized their scientific abilities; the main problem in publishing a list of attractive female bloggers is that you are making things harder for people who are already having a hard time getting scientific credibility. The fact though is that "sexiness" in one form or another is a quality that's at least implicitly coveted by many of us. As Ruben says,
"Many scientists would probably like to see the Business Insider article buried in the dustbin of online history, where it would join pets.com, ASCII porn, and Internet Explorer. But we can't dismiss the notion of sexy science so easily, perhaps because we do strive for sexiness, albeit in a more broadly defined way. We talk about sexy papers, sexy grant proposals, and sexy experiments. In this context, "sexy" means "appealing by virtue of uniting popular or unlikely research strategies," but the effect is the same. As the adage says, sex sells. (Or, if used to vend half a dozen unhealthy gametocytes, sex sells six sick sex cells. See, this is what happens when you try to write after reading Fox in Socks repeatedly to a 2-year-old for a week straight.)"
Sexy looks are thus in a sense an extension of our desire to dress up our work, science and persona in ways that render both us and our research more attractive to the world at large. Ruben ends - in jest of course (although who knows...) - with a cogent list of research practices that could possibly make your "Sexiness Index" shoot up like a Minuteman missile. I am still thinking whether to laugh or cry over the last one.
- Wear a lab coat, latex gloves, safety goggles, and closed-toe shoes.And nothing else.
- Hide unsightly grad students in cabinets.
- Rewrite "x³" in all mathematical equations as "xxx."
- Turn on some Barry White music. Lower the lights in the laboratory. Then have a lot of sex there. Ideally, a second person would be involved as well.
- Replace model organisms … with supermodel organisms!
- Arrange implausible pornographic situations in the lab: "This is my friend Kimberly. She just came over to use the chemical safety shower. Oh, look, the repairman is here to fix the differential scanning calorimeter."
- Offer sexual favors in exchange for grant money. (That's basically what science funding has come to at this point anyway.)