Wednesday, March 6, 2019

A reproducible effect: failing to credit women scientists for their leadership.


[This is a copy of my blogpost, previously on thespectroscope.com.]


There is no shortage of historic examples of women scientists not getting the credit they deserve due to sexism (a few of the countless examples). This is so pervasive, there is actually a name for this, The Matilda Effect, and papers like this have been published about it.
While we all know about this, it’s been shocking for me to personally watch this unfold in the case of Dr. Elizabeth Iorns, the key person behind the Reproducibility Project Cancer Biology (RPCB). As we learn from RPCB that reproducing cancer research is extraordinarily hard, we also get a demonstration of just how strong and reproducible the Matilda Effect still is.
As a cancer researcher, Dr. Iorns had personal painful experiences, trying to replicate published work. Later, as the CEO of ScienceExchange, she noticed that many scientists were asking for validation of cancer research results. This inspired Dr. Iorns to start the Reproducibility Initiative in 2012, in partnership with PLOS and figshare. As a next step in 2013, Dr. Iorns collaborated with Dr. William Gunn to put together a proposal for a major study of reproducibility in cancer research. Together, they brought in Dr. Brian Nosek of the Center for Open Science to collaboratively apply for a grant on RPCB.
A few weeks ago, the first results from RPCB were published, with extensive coverage by major news outlets. I was stunned to see just how many of them minimized or entirely ignored the role of Dr. Iorns.
I went through the January articles covering RPCB, and half of them fail to mention the role of Dr. Iorns altogether, quoting and mentioning only Dr. Nosek. Two others, Gizmodo and Wired mention both, but erroneously credit Dr. Nosek with the RPCB idea. Dr. Nosek even publicly corrected the Wired article:


The history of RPCB is not a secret. Some journalists like Ed Yong in The Atlantic got it exactly right, but Ed Yong is in the rare minority here.



I know all of the people involved with RPCB personally. I like all of them. I doubt that Dr. Nosek intentionally tried to hog the spotlight, at the expense of Dr. Iorns, nor do the journalists have an agenda to minimize women's contributions. That’s probably the hardest part of the Matilda Effect – it happens automatically, without an explicit nefarious attempt by someone to introduce bias. We all have to be aware of this and have to try extra hard to avoid erasing the contributions of women.


Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Personal thoughts about William Gunn

(I am writing this down because every few weeks, William gets attacked as a corporate shill and a sellout human being. That's because he works for Elsevier and because most people have no idea who he is. I know William and am writing this down so I can refer to it, every time he is attacked on Twitter.)


I first met William Gunn in 2013, when protocols.io was just an idea and we were nearly broke. William instantly connected to our mission and became determined to help us. He connected us to Victor Henning, the cofounder of Mendeley, for a Skype call. That call was critical and the advice from Victor may have saved our nascent startup.

After that, William continued to advise us, advocate for us, and helped us to succeed with our Kickstarter. He was so genuinely supportive and gave us so much of his time, I offered to make him an advisor and to give him standard advisor equity in protocols.io. William thanked me and replied that he was helping because of what we are doing for science, not because of compensation. I insisted, as I didn't want to take advantage of people who help. William asked to think about it. A week later, he e-mailed me to say that he thinks it would be a conflict of interest for him to take advisor equity, given his employment with Mendeley/Elsevier.


Since then, William has continued to help us consistently and in big ways. He is also a terrific scientist, one of the strongest advocates for open access, and a passionate supporter of innovation in science publishing and communication.

I don't have many warm thoughts about Elsevier, but I have tremendous respect for William and deep gratitude for his support. Those who attack him simply because he works at Elsevier are confusing individuals with corporations. I am lucky to know William as a person and will try to never make the same mistake.



Thursday, October 13, 2016

Because of Donald Trump, I'm speaking up publicly for the first time about being sexually assaulted.

Twenty years ago, an elderly tailor in Brooklyn, NY sexually assaulted me. I was 19. I never reported it. Only my closest friends and relatives knew about it until now.

I came in to shorten pants from a hand-me-down suit. The tailor closed the curtains and asked me to take off my jeans. He measured my legs. Then he pulled down my underwear and proceeded to do things that I am not able to share even now.

I didn't scream. I didn't beat him up, even though I was way taller and bigger than him. My brain froze. I thanked him and left. 

A few years later I saw this episode of Friends. While millions laughed, I lost the ability to sleep for a few nights.



I am sharing this now because of the accusations against Trump and because of Trump's response:

I am sharing this now because of every Trump supporter who is saying, "These are fabricated stories that are politically motivated attacks. If these charges were true, the women would have spoken up before."

I haven't spoken up before. Many reasons not to, even for a man like me. Even against an old shriveled pervert tailor, I didn't speak up. For a woman to speak up against Donald Trump would be infinitely harder.

I didn't say anything 12 or 20 years ago. However, if that pervert tailor surfaced publicly now and tried to run for political office, you bet I would have decided to come forward, just as I did here.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Let's not pretend there are still lines left to cross for Trump.

I have lost count of the number of headlines with, "Trump has finally crossed a line..." The problem is that short of openly calling for genocide, there are no more lines left for Trump to cross.

I understand the shock and outrage with each new despicable utterance from Trump. The problem is that by reacting to each new one with "this is the final one!" we implicitly pardon everything else that he said. We suggest that everything before was forgivable. We give cover to the people who still endorse him.
-----------------------------------------------
[just a small sample of the "crossed the line" headlines]

Sept. 20, NPR: With Donald Trump's Birther Spin, He's Crossed A Line.

Aug. 9, Esquie: The Moment You Realize Trump Finally Crossed the Line (On Trump suggesting "Second Amendment people" should kill Hillary Clinton)

Aug. 1, 2016 Chicago Tribune: Trump crosses line on Muslim patriots who balance religion, duty (After Trump attacked Gold Star parent Khizr and Ghazala Khan)

July 29, Chicago Tribune: Trump's comments on Russia cross a line (encouraging Russia to hack HRC emails)

July 6, Boston Globe: Rep. Moulton: Trump crossed line by praising Saddam Hussein

June 2, The Guardian:  Donald Trump's judge-bashing crosses a line (Mexican judge cannot be impartial because he is Mexican)

Feb 8, 2016, MotherJones: Donald Trump Just Crossed a New Line in American Politics

July 21, 2015, CNN: GOP to Trump: You crossed the line (Trump said that John McCain is no war hero because he was captured)

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Trump's Tower of Frauds and another startup scammer preying on protocols.io


(Image: Entrance of The Trump Building,  Billy Hathorn, CC BY-SA 3.0)

It seems that every few months, a new startup scam comes up on our radar. It's always someone claiming that they will make it easy for you to get millions for your startup if you just pay them a little bit first. I have written before about these pay-to-pitch schemes like the Keiretsu forum and have put together a guide to avoiding the scammers and parasites.

Still, one more timer-waster, Hanover International, managed to get fairly far, despite our experience and guard against these schemes. This was a group that was recommended to us by someone we trust, so we met with them. In the very first meeting, just to be certain I wouldn't be wasting my time, I told them that we don't participate in "pay-to-pitch" schemes and don't work with "introducers" who want a monthly fee for connecting to investors. I shared our above blog posts to nail in that point.

In response, I was assured that Hanover is legit and they don't do shady things like the terrible Keiretsu forum that charges $5,000-$10,000 for the honor of presenting to potential investors who won't invest in your startup. I searched for any scam reports on Hanover International, but unlike the countless hits for Keiretsu, found none. So, I went forward and had three different calls with a bunch of people from Hanover, including its founder Jim Hock. Jim stressed repeatedly that VCs are bloodsuckers who just want to enrich themselves, in contrast to Wall Street banks that invest for the good of the startup.

The line about Wall Street versus VCs sounded like total bullshit to me, and I wasn't too surprised when the product of our conversations was a proposal from Hanover to work with us towards getting a round from investment bankers, at the rate of $2,500/month plus equity. They required a minimum of 4 months of payments, which would be $10,000 - in fact twice as much as what the Keiretsu scammers tried to charge us. That's $10,000 of cash plus equity in the company for some preparatory work and introductions. Steep, especially considering that I reiterated multiple times prior to their proposal that under no circumstances would we pay any retainers or upfront cash.

I went back to Googling of Hanover International for complaints, and it caught my eye that searching for their "40 Wall Street" address brought me to SEC's, Public Alert: Unregistered Soliciting Entities (List of Unregistered Soliciting Entities That Have Been the Subject of Investor Complaints). Hanover itself wasn't on this list of fake companies, but their address was by far the most over-represented address on this list of fakes. This is the Trump Building, profiled by Bloomberg a few days ago as "Inside Trump’s Most Valuable Tower: Felons, Dictators and Girl Scouts" with this juicy segment:

“Iconic and wonderful,” Donald J. Trump said at a South Carolina town hall event last year, praising the 86-year-old Art Deco tower as one of his great possessions. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also told fans in Maine that critics who mock his failed companies should focus instead on the Manhattan skyscraper. “They don’t want to talk about 40 Wall Street,” he said. 
But the 72-story building has housed frauds, thieves, boiler rooms and penny-stock schemers since Trump took it over in 1995 in what may be the best deal of his career. No single property in his portfolio is more valuable than 40 Wall St., according to a Bloomberg valuation of his assets last year. And no U.S. address has been home to more of the unregistered brokerages that investors complain about, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s current public alert list.

Since my mother lives in New York, I asked her to stop by 40 Wall Street and check for Hanover. Yep, no sign of the company or Jim Hock anywhere in that building. I called Jim, confronted him, and he feebly attempted to come up with excuses. I then told him to stay away from us and wrote an angry e-mail to their entire group. The comical full exchange is below.


-----------------------------------
From: Lenny Teytelman <lenny@protocols.io>
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:13 AM
Subject: Parting ways

Dear All,

As I just expressed to Jim over the phone, we would like to disengage.

Frankly, I am surprised that it took this long with the phone calls and emails, wasting everyone's time. I was crystal clear in my first meeting with Michael on February 26 that we do not participate in pay-to-pitch arrangements. At the first meeting, I shared these blog posts with Michael:


Two weeks ago, over the phone, I was explicit that we would not be paying a retainer fee. Still, you sent the proposal asking to be paid thousands of dollars per month. In fact, we would pay you under that more than the $4,500 that Keiretsu asked to pitch their investors.

I am disappointed, to say the least.


Lenny


P.S. It also doesn't help that you loudly list 40 Wall Street as the corporate address for Hanover, but there is no record of Jim Hock or the company in the Trump building. When I asked you Jim about this, you said you are sharing on the 18th floor, but you list 28th at NIBA. All combined, none of this looks good.
---------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Lindberg 
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Response to your Parting Ways
To: Lenny Teytelman

Dear Lenny,
We are in receipt of your most recent email and we must disagree with your declarations.  We, as Hanover International provide advisory services including the preparation of marketing materials, PowerPoint presentations, and executive summary and enhanced business plan preparation and investor relations. In addition we position a company to be introduced to applicable investment banking houses based upon industry and capital requirements.

We had decided after your phone call  of stating that you could not pay our fees that we would go ahead on good faith and introduce you to selected investment banking houses. We, as a team have spent hours going through that process on your behalf and you have decided not to avail yourself of that process. 

The proposal we sent to you was for discussion purposes only. It was not a contract.   In an email on March 30 you replied that it “looks good” in regards to document. Further, in that same email you suggested an alternative to our monthly fee. You asked would we consider receiving greater equity in a described protocol for our services.

We told you and re-iterated on conference calls with the members of the Hanover team that we do not work for “success fees” or commissions for capital raises as they are not in compliance with securities rules and regulations.

We ceased utilization of “executive offices” in New York at 40 Wall Street due to the fact that we were offered a better deal at 44 Wall Street and are moving there. The reason for the delay of this moving process is that Jim Hock has been dealing with serious medical issues and could not travel.

Finally, any claims about us that may be misinformed or irresponsible is both wrong and harmful and we will protect our reputation accordingly.

We sincerely wish you the best of luck and future success in all of your endeavors.

Regards,

Jerry Lindberg

HANOVER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Managing Director
------------------------------------------------
From: Lenny Teytelman
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Response to your Parting Ways
To: Jerry Lindberg

Dear Jerry,

Thank you for the reply. You did not say or re-iterate on our calls that you are not a registered dealer/broker. I assume that is what you mean by saying that you "cannot do success fees".

I do not see how I could have been more clear to Michael and everyone else that we would not be paying a retainer. That is why I sent the blog posts. That is why I repeated multiple times via phone and email that we would not pay upfront. That is a terrible deal for startups and in most cases is a border-line scam. 

If you think that what you are doing is fine, then so is the Keiretsu operation. 

You tell me you "ceased" utilization, but Jim Hock told me this morning that you are there, just under a different name.

Your explanations simply confirm to me that I have wasted my time.

Lenny
---------------------------------------
[Note: It's been almost 3 months since the exchange, and "40 Wall Street" is still the address on the Hanover website.]

Thursday, March 24, 2016

No media. No liberal bias. Just TRUMP.

I have family members who are big supporters of Trump. Whenever we discuss his outrageous and hateful ideas, I am told, it's just the media and liberal spin on the moderate and reasonable ideas of Trump. Most recent e-mail exchange:

Me: I have no reason to think he [Trump] is an anti-Semite. But the stuff he says on racial issues is deeply revolting. Just because it's about Muslims and Mexicans doesn't mean I am okay with it. I am not listening to any pundits. I am listening to Trump and that's the part that makes me deeply uncomfortable. Most of the vitriol is coming directly from him. And that's what my question is about...

Relative: Give me quotes directly from Trump. Make sure to include all the sentences before and after the offending words, then read them twice, and then we can discuss each one. You will be pressed to find anything to support what you just said. You'll see - it's truly amazing what the media does even to smart people. 
 So as a resource for those whose family and friends are Trump supporters, I am starting the following list. Not quotes from newspaper articles. No bias/spin/out-of-context/clipped quotes. Just a simple list of things Trump says himself on his Tweeter account.


On science:





On Putin:

On Obama:






On "losers":




On Muslims and immigrants:



On, uhm, sorry, can't classify this insanity.



Tuesday, March 8, 2016

U.S. is not 1930 Germany. Trump may not be Hitler. But what if he is?

I don't like paranoia and baseless frenzy. I hate it when people throw around "Nazi" and "Hitler" comparisons on social media, as people constantly love to do. And everyone who was around in 2008 and 2012 and witnessed the United States electing Barack Obama, both times, should realize that the U.S. today is not where Germany was in 1930. The candidates for the Democratic nominee just discussed racial blindspots and white privilege in the debate on Sunday. And both Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are more likely to be elected than Trump. So, as Marco Rubio would say, let's dispel with the notion that the U.S. is Nazi Germany.

In fact, it seems that 11% of Muslims support Trump. I personally know Jews who are huge fans of Trump. Their reasoning is that Trump doesn't believe any of the vile stuff that he spews. It's just a tactic to get elected. But do we know what Hitler believed? Here's the first mention of Hitler in the NYT (hat tip Jens Foell):

Yes, Trump may just be a cunning opportunist. He may get elected and turn out to be the most open and socially liberal politician in the history of our country. Sure, non-zero chance of that. But we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is the case. And what if we elect him and it turns out we are wrong? What is the price of that?

I may be an overly-cautious Jew. Having relatives who died in the Holocaust surely plays into my perspective on politics. But white supremacists aside, who is comfortable with the stuff below?

1. Trump seems happy to be endorsed by the KKK.

2. Racial profiling of entire ethnic and religious groups is Trump's forte. According to Trump, Mexicans are rapists and all Muslims should be banned from entering the U.S.

3. Trump suggested instituting a national identification system for tracking Muslims - eerily reminiscent of the Judenstern (the Jewish star of Nazi Europe).

4. Trump may be a fan of Hitler's speeches.

5. Given all of the above, the Hitler-like salutes at Trump's rallies give me chills.

6. It's not just comedians, media, and liberals who compare Trump to Hitler. Conservatives Glen Beck and Christine Todd Whitman think so too. Yet, Trump is not at all bothered by the frequent comparisons of him to Hitler. That should bother us all.