They’re already off the cliff, they just haven’t looked down yet.
should be diving off…
Hopefully she gets deported to a good country. We’re evil now. Like Google turned evil.
If she’s being moved against her will, then it’s safe to assume she’s being moved someplace worse.
you could just read the article instead of safely assuming… but yes:
fighting possible deportation to Russia, where she said she fears persecution and jail time over her protests against the war in Ukraine.
russia will put her in a gulag or maybe just kill her.
I hope her lawyer is skilled and the court responsive to arguments - and she gets her freedom back.
If I was her, one of my first actions would be starting to teach a colleague to replace me, while asking colleagues abroad about open jobs in research (followed by questions about legislation, immigration and civil rights).
Basically, I would not stay in a country whose officials wronged me for no reason, and might do that again.
Why on earth would she have any interest in helping the company retain knowledge when the country that company is in has treated her so poorly? Move on and it’s their loss.
I hear there is no shortage of countries willing to take American scientists. I don’t think she’ll have a problem finding a better (safer) place.
Operation: Return Paperclip
I hope she’s not sent to a death camp before a court have a chance to say anything, because that’s also a thing that can happen.
Last thing I’d do is give anyone a way to do my work without me present
I love the headline. That’s how you report on these issues: still clickbaity but focusing on the perps and the effects of their actions.
I see where you’re coming from and agree from that perspective, on the other hand, I feel like it highlights and billboards the stupidity of this regime extremely well.
Like: “Hey we could have a cure for cancer any minute now but no, these dumbnuts are too busy scaring and/or extrajudicially kidnapping people who would better humanity.”
I don’t really like it, makes it sound as if her rights are only important because she is useful.
It’s important because the rhetoric of “we only want useful people” isn’t true. It’s not just about her, it’s also about false rhetoric.
While I agree with your concern, I think it does help highlight how bad these policies are because it is impacting more than just “useless <insert hated group here>” or something like that. I agree that rights should still matter regardless, but focusing on the impacts helps signal to broader audiences.
The main reason she is detained is probably that she is a russian who opposes the Ukraine war.
Do you have a source handy? With ICE backed by this administration, I wouldn’t imagine Russians with bad takes on Ukraine would be targets.
I’d imagine Russians opposing the Ukraine war would especially be targets, maybe you misread the comment and the “bad take”? Trump would be eager to get rid of pro-Ukraine speakers for Putin.
(A source would be nice too)
Isn’t this the main complaint about China and the communists from the West in terms of actions, not the half baked oversimplified idealist nonsense; anti academic injustices due to populist stupidity in politics that lead to mass murder and loss of human progress?
Yes, and I personally feel that until January 2025 it was still a valid claim for an american to make. Not anymore.
deleted by creator
ICE detained
thea Harvard scientist who analyzes themOooffff… Full support to this person but scientism is part of the problem.
It’s always satisfying when someone I have tagged later confirms that tag.
If and when we find a better method than the scientific method, I’ll start getting concerned with “Scientism.” Until then, I’ll keep on cheering on our best and greatest doing the hard work of making new medicine and technology for the public.
I find Scientism concerning because I am a scientist who is quite concerned by the gap between actual science, and how people use science-shaped rhetoric. An example of this is how in the UK, during COVID, the government repeatedly claimed they were “following the science”, despite many of their policies being completely contrary to what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had recommended.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the scientific method — I wouldn’t be a scientist otherwise. But writing news headlines about the achievements of scientists exists beyond science. Being opposed to Scientism isn’t being opposed to the scientific method. Rather, it’s more like acknowledging that science isn’t a universal tool for solving all ills. Personally, being against Scientism also means being against the weird way we put science, and scientists on a pedestal. I understand the sentiment (and hell, I’m probably a scientist in part because a younger me was chasing that pedestal), but I think it’s probably harmful long term — both to society and to science
Edit: fixed grammar
I see what you mean. Science is a fantastic tool but when leaders just wave it around with vague claims that “experts have done studies that agreed with me.” . . . It always spells trouble.
Yo I think I found Ted Kaczynski’s account
I’m confused by this. Can you explain?
How so?
Yeah made up stories by dusty old men are much better for understanding the truth of the world
Thanks for making me aware of scientism. I am a little unsure how it applies here through.
A facet of Scientism, as I understand it, is a sort of hero worship of “Great” scientists. Part of this is because it’s easier for us to build a narrative of history if we focus on key figure, but that’s antithetical to how science actually works. It neglects the importance of the wider scientific “ecosystem”, which includes mechanisms of peer review, academic teaching and learning etc.
I’ve known people who were pretty prominent academics, who got some of their best ideas from random places, like hanging out in a bar with academics from outside their field. But a good idea on its own matters very little: science, in practice, works on a foundation of trust and community, and basically any research has an entire team of people behind it.
I have no doubt that the scientist mentioned in the headline is exceptional at her job, but by presenting her as the scientist who is working on this presents an inaccurate perspective of how these things actually work. I see why the headline chose to present her as more essential than she likely is, but as it seems to for the person you’re replying to, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Quality replies are much appreciated! I think that narrative, as you put it, is generally a good thing as it helps us to remember information and make sense of the world. I work in research so I didn’t think twice about the distinction between the and a scientists. Not so sure that scientism is in my top 10 problems list, but it it is still good to be aware of such biases.
“Could” in this context usually means it doesn’t.
the reason she was detained was that she was analyzing images that’d cure cancer. you underestimated big pharma
Somewhere in here is a perfect counter balance to right wing speak.
“A scientist who was about to publish a cancer curd has been arrest by border agents with Trump’s authority. Trump received billions big pharm funding.”
The trick with the right is it doesn’t need to be entity true. It just need to tick ther correct set of emotions.
Okay RFK.
Why would the greedy fuccbois at the top of these pharmacy companies want to cure cancer? Aside from the clout theyll make billions more off inflated treatments that may or may not work
Each cancer is almost a disease in itself, due to its own individual nature, for an effective treatment the ideal would be to use personalized medicine, which will always give a lot of money to big pharmaceutical companies, there is no need for them to delay or harm research into cancer treatment.
Realistically speaking, she’s most likely somehow sponsored by big pharma (Well considering that it’s imaging, it’s more the interesection between big tech and big pharma, not sure where to put health division of GE or Siemens) , and cancer treatment/dianostic bring them a lot of money so they like cancer research.
Looking at a couple publications from the lab funding appears to be from a couple different foundations but nothing commercial. Pharma barely puts anything into basic R+D unless they’re a startup. Established pharma R+D is largely clinical trials and/or process development. If her work is patented by the university then pharma may pay the university to use her work. University would then give a smaller kickback to the lab/scientists.
NCI (national cancer institute-part of NIH) was the largest cancer research funder in the US, about 7B worth and even then less than 10% of proposed projects were being funded. The ACS (American cancer society) funds about 100M.
Thank you for this. I’m not sure how it became common knowledge to assume pharma companies pay for r&d but I’ve seen 10 different people on this app say those exact words and it’s really starting to peeve me off.
