December 29, 2023

I have often written about my experiences as a scientist in a federal research lab and my years leading a group of other scientists. When I began my career 40+ years ago, the staffing was mostly (but not all) male and white, and mostly competent. I say mostly competent, because there was certainly a small collection of low energy, retired-in-place (mostly white male) goof-offs who we all wished would depart. There were always attempts to increase recruitment of minorities and women, but “grow your own” was ultimately the only approach that was barely workable

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

To illustrate the ham-fisted early efforts, I relate a story circa 1990; the local university was graduating a young, impressive guy with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (thesis and published research focused on mechanical and personnel operations in low gravity). My agency scheduled a day-and-a-half of interviews with all the supervisors, not because he was a potential Nobel prize winner, but because he was black. We had to give him a good experience and if at all possible, a job offer.  

My problem was that I led a chemistry research group; my knowledge about low gravity was from Hollywood. And probably the only chemistry he knew was from high school. Nevertheless, I was told my interview was to end with my (disingenuous) promise that I would do my damnedest to find him a place in my group.  

He walked into my office, clearly tired, well aware of the charade, and asked for a cup of joe. Immediately I knew aero companies would fight over him (and not because of his color). We drank our coffee, and I told him: “look, this is a chemistry group; I have two former students, one at Boeing and one at Pratt&Whitney.  Here are their cards.  Give them a call.”  Our “interview” took as long as the coffee lasted, and he left. I was called on the carpet for being racially insensitive by not taking up more of his time, but this fellow got interviews at both places I suggested, and I was the only person at the agency to get a thank-you card from him.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

Things are different now, and not for the better. We are told that without “diversity” (read, ethno-racial diversity) the scientific and engineering enterprise will disintegrate. You wouldn’t believe the “hard data” trotted out to bolster this position.  A 2014 article discusses a study of 2.5 million U.S. scientific publications, in which surname was used as a surrogate for identity! At least these authors were honest enough to admit it is difficult to “tease out” implications from their approach (duh!). The authors concluded that papers with one or more “international” authors (again, based on surname) were more cited (and impactful) than those with, well, WASP-like (or dare I say, Jewish) sounding authors!

Already, that raises alarms with me; putting the Goldsteins and Wilsons in a separate bucket from more ethnic names is, frankly, objectionable. I wonder which bucket I (Bruno, with Sicilian and Neapolitan antecedents) landed in? Though I am a spaghetti-bender from the streets of New York City, I was probably swept into the international bucket! Are all of my 270+ published research articles written by an “international” author? To draw conclusions from such data is only a bit less problematic than eugenics.

Doubling down, a 2020 paper  argued for the existence of an “innovation paradox,” concluding: “demographically underrepresented students innovate at higher rates than majority students.” This flawed study, based on dissertations from 1977-2015, also used name signals as a surrogate for race/ethnicity.  But since dissertations don’t have a “written by a black person” label, these folks correlated surnames with race in the 2000 and 2010 census, and gender with the author’s first name.  

There are many black folks named Washington (also, Freeman or Freedman, Williams, Johnson, Smith, Jones, and Brown). Similar analysis was done with other ethnicities and gender. Of course, many first names are gender-neutral, but this is not mentioned. You can see how tenuous this is getting. Is Freeman/Freedman black or Jewish? Fact is, after the Civil War, many emancipated black people adopted this name, making differentiation nearly impossible.  

The most glaring flaw of this study is that the innovation link is assumed to begin with the dissertation; if a student publishes an innovative paper prior to completing the dissertation, the “innovation” is not captured by their analysis. I hate to break it to these folks, but the overwhelming majority of STEM Ph.D. students will have published at least 3+ papers before their final oral exam. Most STEM departments will not even allow a student to defend a dissertation not previously peer reviewed and published!  

The simple fact is all claims that racial, ethnic and gender diversity is critical to STEM-team excellence are completely unfounded, as you can deduce from the tenuous underpinnings. Anyone of any color, ethnicity or sex should have the opportunity to pursue a STEM career if that is their desire. If you’re a good scientist or engineer, your color, gender, or what grandma cooked for Thanksgiving dinner, matters not at all.