PATER PECCAVI

Recently I received the book How to Succeed in Academics from a mentor following a conversation in which I expressed to her the undue difficulties that I and other PhD students have had with a certain adviser. She said this book offered insight into choosing good mentorship, and I believe that’s probably true. I flipped through the book yesterday, though, and came upon Chapter 7, “Underrepresented Groups”, which is all of 4 pages and includes a subheader called “A Positive Attitude Goes A Long Way.” Here’s the intro to Chap 7:

“Just as women have faced discrimination in academics, so have members of underrepresented groups. If you feel you are experiencing discrimination because you are a member of such a group, you should discuss this with your mentors and decide upon a course of action. If your mentors do not feel that this is a case of discrimination, you need to reevaluate the situation. Everyone has disappointments. Those who succeed have been able to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and continue with more resolve than ever.”

and Chap 6, “Gender Issues”:

“While those of us who are women have come a long way, we may occasionally confront situations in which it would appear that our gender is holding us back. When these arise, it would be wise to consult one or more mentors to determine is this is truly the case. Should your mentors confirm your suspicions, you and your mentors should determine whether to confront the individual or to address these issues with your university ombudsperson. If your mentors disagree with your perception, you need to ask yourself if you are viewing all aspects of your career through gender-colored glasses. Do you interpret every bump in the road as being due to prejudice against women? If so, you need to step back and take responsibility for your own behavior and not consistently misinterpret the responses of others.”

Oooooookay. Well so here’s the thing, McCabe & McCabe: gender and minority prejudice are institutionalized in academics. It’s not one “individual” or one “situation” that reproduces violence, it’s the whoooole thing. The whole of academics. So, I’m not going to refer to someone else for a second opinion on whether I feel discriminated against or not. I’m not going to subject my experiences to peer review.

I cannot believe this book was published in 2010 by a husband-and-wife duo in the sciences. The rhetoric is straight out of Life magazine circa 1950. It is so naive, like there’s nothing at stake. If this is how “successful” academics think of major problems in the university, then I consider it a call to arms.

“Both Cajal and Sherrington were artists, imaginative, widely read, charismatic, hugely energetic, enormously fluent with prose and poetry…..Anyone browsing through the early scientific literature that is the foundation of modern neuroscience will soon discover that in the formulaic, bland, and often semi-literate writing of contemporary science, we have lost an undeniably human presence. The passionately engaged, literate author, in energetic pursuit of nature’s secrets, is now an endangered species.”

::Rodney J. Douglas and Kevan A.C. Martin, 2007 from their review, “The Butterfly and the loom” published in Brain Research Reviews (emphasis mine).

A well-written, captivating read—inspirational to me not because it briefly recounts the discovery and and controversies of the basic tenets of neuroscience (which it does), but because it exalts the kind of scientist that I aspire to become.