New research finds that attractive people in the business world or academia may be at a disadvantage when they’re evaluated by a member of the same sex.

Good-looking people have it easier than the rest of us. Considerable research has come to that conclusion, including a 2009 study that found that personal attractiveness enhances one’s income prospects.

But a newly published paper points out an exception to that rule. An attractive person appears to be at a disadvantage in certain academic or workplace situations: specifically, if he or she is being evaluated by a member of the same sex.

“Although physical attractiveness should have little to do with the way people evaluate scholarship applicants and job candidates, we found that both were affected by their level of physical attractiveness,” writes psychologist Maria Agthe of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. In the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, she contends this bias is “rooted partly in the social threats and opportunities afforded by attractive people.”

In other words, while our conscious minds are considering an applicant’s skills and background, our unconscious minds are sizing him or her up as a romantic competitor. (It’s never too early to contemplate the next company party.)

In a paper titled “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Beautiful,” Agthe and her co-authors, Matthias Spörrle (Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich) and Jon K. Maner (Florida State University), describe two experiments. In the first, 2,639 students were asked to imagine serving on a scholarship selection committee. They were asked to choose among a group of finalists, using detailed information on their grades and extracurricular activities, as well as a photo.

The images were “extensively pre-tested by an independent sample of 40 students” to determine attractiveness. Participants were asked to rank the three finalists in the order in which they would award the scholarship.

“When men judged women, the most attractive target received the first rank in 49.9 percent of the cases,” Agthe reported. “The least attractive person was chosen only 16.5 percent of the time. A similar pattern was found for female participants: The most attractive man was ranked first 42.5 percent of the time. This pro-attractiveness bias was not found for same-sex selections.”

by Tom Jacobs

http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/qualified-but-just-too-handsome-18377/

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend ‘The Rightful Place of Science?’ (TRPS) conference, organized by Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO), in Tempe, Arizona with travel grants from Boehringer-Ingelheim Fonds. As a scientist in training, I used to believe science in its efficiency was an almost-perfect system: self-governing, thinking, and acting as police against badly done science, or intentionally false scientific claims. The discussions from the conference pointed out that no man can be trusted to be the judge in his own dispute. Science is made up of human beings who are capable of making mistakes. Hence, science in its rightful role in providing enlightenment is still need to be overseen by society in the formation of interdisciplinary board to avoid the notion that self-governing equals to self-pleasing – this can be observed in the practice of ‘Ethics Board’ for example.

Not every questions can be answered but I have learnt much about the complexity of the interactions between science and society especially about objectivity in science (read here) and university as economic engine (read here). I also put some of my thoughts from the case study (read here).

You might allso like what Sean Hayes wrote in TRPS blog – I quite agree with his statements which summarize some of the issues during the conference (you can also read it here)

Oh, do not  miss what Monsignor Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo from The Pontifical Academy of Science presenting about ‘The Truth of Science for Justice and Peace’  - here. (Yes, you are right, the Pope has Scientific Advisers!)

Getting research funding/grants can be very tricky. Recently, Austin Elliot from Nature Blog post an interesting article:

http://blogs.nature.com/austinelliott/2010/05/06/funding-the-elite-is-not-the-real-problem

Has anyone seen ‘Dragons’ Den’ on TV? It is just another ‘reality-tv-show’ with ‘real money and real business’. The concept of the program is actually the contestants have to present their product ideas to several investors or known ‘the dragons’. The contestants have to demonstrate the ability to innovate and at the same time convince the dragons. Even if the contestant got the investment, the ‘show’ does not stop there. The contestant will still need to proof himself that he could earn profits from his new business.

Most people do not know that most companies are founded by scientists. Businessmen are people who takes over the management. The idea to commercialize still comes from scientists’ initiatives. We can imagine that how many ‘prospective products’ failed to be commercialized simply because the scientists do not have the entrepreneurial skills. Training in entrepreneurship is also advantageous for scientists as it also shapes minds to think further in terms of their research impact aside from driving the economy.

Last September, I was fortunate enough to join Biotechnology Young Entrepreneurship Scheme (BYES) which is part of BBSRC training programs. Me and my friends (Tony, Bhavya, and Sian) entered the competition with a company called ‘Cyclome’ with a range of natural products for paper recycling (details, ask me). We did not win but during the process, at least, I have learnt about entrepreneurship tremendously. As scientists, we did not know much about commercialization therefore we got some help from Deborah Spencer, Dave Reuter (photos), Niall Morrison (design), John MacKenzie, Tom Shepherd, Jim Affleck, Kevin Parker, Patrick McCarthy, Sandy Neish, Ewan Ramsay, and Rowan Norrie. They are amazing people.

Cyclome with Deborah Spencer from MRC PPU (Hosea, Bhayva, Deborah, Sian, Tony)

Cyclome Board Meeting

Cyclome with Kevin Parker from KKi

Patrick McCarthy from Genecom with Cyclome and Enzymatix

Sandy Neish from Decision Support System with Cyclome and Enzymatix

Have you ever thought that being a scientist is no other than being an apologist?

Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense (taken from Wikipedia – Apologetics, retrieved 09/03/09)

I have spent at least the last five years studying life sciences and especially the last two-three years in world-renowned lab with ‘amazing and unique’ famous scientists under training in cell biology and cellular signalling. The deeper I dive into science and its research, I found that science is not ‘as solid as’ what I used to naively believe like in mathematics where “1+1=2″.

In my research, biochemistry, for example, I can only ‘visualize’ and build the story of what happens inside the cell according to huge number of contradictive literatures – with a big leap of faith - that the story is true. Then, before I could believe that ‘one story is correct, I have to test the story by conducting a certain experiment. However, although I found the same results, my peers can always argue that my experiment lacks this and that – realizing the limitations of research (and science in general). No matter how well I design and conduct the experiments or convincing my results are, people can still doubt my work. Then, even though I have convinced someone (or even general public) that my work is true, it is always again coming back to me – the doubt of bias is always haunting my mind.

Interestingly, CS Lewis also mention this kind of situation on his work as Christian Apologist:

“I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that Faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result, when you go away from that debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality– from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself.”
C. S. Lewis, The Joyful Christian

Maybe I should re-phrase his statement:

“I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own passion in science than the work of a science researcher. No scientific theory seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in peer-reviewed journals and symposiums. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result, when you go away from that discussion, it seems no stronger than that weak hypotheses. That is why we, science researchers take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality– from scientific pride into what science is all about.”