Leo Igwe urges boycott of homophobic Nigerian pastor »« Sean Carroll is in

Scientific American has its reasons

But what are they?

Editor in chief and Senior VP Mariette DiChristina explained on Twitter

Re blog inquiry: @sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed.

And got what is apparently an infinite number of replies – the page is still loading and I’ve been reading and scrolling for several minutes. The replies are stinging and clarifying.

A few:

Christie Wilcox @NerdyChristie

.@mdichristina Since when does @sciam censor blogs for lacking science content? No one took down my posts like this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/11/12/musical-monday-stay-near-me/ ….

Maggie Koerth-Baker @maggiekb

Expectation of free work is big deal. Treatment of women who refuse paradigm, even more.

Seth Zenz @sethzenz

Science blogging is best w/ writers’ work/lives. You picked a very bad time to define it narrowly.

Janet D Stemwedel @docfreeride

Can you please clarify what “discovering science” means in context of @SciAmBlogs? cc @BoraZ

Martin Robbins @mjrobbins

This is a complete and utter screw up on your part. The sooner you guys get on top of it, the better.

Mariette DiChristina responded:

@hannahjwaters @sciam @BoraZ @DNLee5 “Partner” connection not a factor.

More infinite responses:

Ben Lillie @BenLillie

@mdichristina @hannahjwaters @boraz @dnlee5 Doesn’t matter. Pulling that post sends an incredibly bad message for diversity and support.

Chris Clarke @canlistrans

@mdichristina a staggeringly bad decision on scism’s part. Not too late to fix it. @hannahjwaters @sciam @BoraZ @DNLee5

The editor in chief says the reason was not the partner connection, but does not say what the reason was. Hm.

Comments

  1. says

    Re blog inquiry: @sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed.

    It’s like she started with a Mad Lib and filled it in wrong. Should have been:

    sciam is a publication for discovering science. CALLING OUR BLOGGER A WHORE was not appropriate & we are therefore ending our partnership with BO.

    Responses should read:

    sciam is a publication for discovering science. Deleting Lee’s post was not appropriate & I will therefore stop reading or supporting SciAm.

  2. rnilsson says

    Wish I could boycott, but regardless of gender I’m so out of cotts I never even read SciAm at the Liberallary.

    When visiting my daughter, I sometimes re-read the 2007 copy of a Skandinävish popular sci/tech mag they keep in the loo. To its credit, it never yet called anyone a whore, to my knowledge; a relatively immense bonus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>