Read on Twitter
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00341-3
I don't normally do this, but it's time for a thread rant. I was hunting through journal feeds today and stumbled on this article in Nature from last Friday. Now, on the face of it, I think this is an awesome idea. Hell, I run a whole channel about this.
I don't normally do this, but it's time for a thread rant. I was hunting through journal feeds today and stumbled on this article in Nature from last Friday. Now, on the face of it, I think this is an awesome idea. Hell, I run a whole channel about this.
So, what's the problem? Well the article actually addresses most of it "Some might fear that a video format will favour those with access to high-quality computer animation or preparation support
or amplify bias by revealing the gender, race and other distinguishing characteristics of applicants. However, we reason that the goal must be to maximize communication quality and efficiency, while assuming our peers are not easily bamboozled, nor blinded by bias.
That's total nonsense. Our peers have bias and to suggest they would "rise above it through the power of the ivory tower" is absolute garbage and nothing less. Then there's the whole "well, we gotta do what is necessary for better communication" AKA...
And here's the thing. My work is all about helping working scientists make graphics and animation to better explain their work. I agree with the basic premise that this will lead to better proposals. I specifically do everything with free to use software so it is more accessible.
But this is not an easy skillset to acquire, so when the supervisors or superiors start asking students to learn graphic design to help them win proposals and then say "Hey it's a skill that will help you later", sure that's true, but also... will they be compensated?
Will learning a whole other field be accounted for? Maybe. I kind of doubt it. And that leads inevitably to hiring artists (Which I 100 % do encourage) but which also requires the means to do so. Oh, and to compensate them fairly for their work.
But you can of course just use simple videos and that will still be a step up. Again, maybe it will. But now we can talk about production quality. Who has the better lights, camera, audio space. Who can afford it?
And then we're back again. Are we really going to pretend there isn't bias in assessing that quality? Are we really going to pretend there isn't bias on the basis of all kinds of perceived or actual differences? I sure as hell am not going to pretend that.
And so, long rant wrapped up. Animations/Video/etc, yes an awesome way to improve your communication. Yes an opportunity to improve. But you can't just gloss over the very real challenges here and doing so is a huge misstep.
I will continue to make tutorials and assets for scientists trying to do 3D animation and make better graphics. I'll continue to do it with #blender, because it's awesome and free. Hell, I'll keep doing it for free myself.
But there is no way that I'm going to sit by and say "we assume that our peers are not blinded by bias" because there aren't enough polite words to say how much I disagree with that statement. And there are no guarantees that this doesn't come with other challenges.
