Science and A Scientist

[Popcorn Sutton]

I was watching a YouTube video on a question answering session with Lawrence Krauss. He made me think, like usual, and I wanted to make a post about it.

 

If there is a scientist, and he/she is VERY good at what they do, possibly even the best at what they do, they have an obvious utility and their work could be very important and useful for some very practical purposes. Before you decide to take this person on board, you look into their background and find that they have some perversions, but otherwise are a normal person. Would those perversions change your mind about hiring this person and/or funding their research? What if they have seemingly lost interest in their perversions for a few months, a year, a decade, etc.?

 

Lawrence seems to think that it doesn't matter, I agree with him, but what are your thoughts about it?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[iNow]

It kind of depends on what the "perversions" are and what type of work I'm hiring them for.

 

If they're working by themselves and are not employed by me, then it's easy to use their science and focus on whether or not it accurately describes the reality around us... all without much regard or concern for what they do in their personal life.

 

If they're working for me, however, then they become an employee representing me and my company (or my university or organization) and certain character traits become much more relevant and possibly damning... but they could still of course do science and others could still reference their science if it was valid.

Edited February 9, 2014 by iNow

[chadn737]

This is a general problem for all fields. There is nothing special about scientists in this regard.

[Phi for All]

"Some perversions" found in a background check doesn't sound like your garden variety private scandals. Multiple recorded counts of actions officials deem perverted would most definitely matter to me if this was someone I was considering hiring. I would require multiple references confirming that this individual was a) as good as he says, and b) had control of his perversions.

 

But as iNow says, this person's science can be assessed without knowing anything about him, so perhaps that's what Dr Krauss meant when he said it didn't matter.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Does a scientists feelings matter? What if they develop care for their boss or their peers? Do those feelings matter? Could it cost them their funding? Also, what if the project that got them the job to begin with is already complete? What happens to the scientist after that?

[CharonY]

I have honestly no idea what the context is. Take on board for what? What position(s) are we talking about? What kind of perversions?

A position that requires some kind security clearance would be more strict than in a public uni, for example. If the perversion is watching naked ladies on the internet I would not be concerned unless the person decides to do it during work. If the perversion is cannibalistic in nature, I would be somewhat concerned.

But I agree with chadn737, I do not see how being a scientist would be any different than, say, a plumber, if context with regards to the job is unclear.

 

The last post seems to be even more confused than the first one. If pressed, my answer would be fish and chips and a stout.

[John Cuthber]

The law treats everyone as equal: we all have utility.

If that "perversion" is criminal then the law should deal with it, if not, why worry?

But it's difficult to answer in the abstract.

[ajb]

It only matters when the "perversion" directly effects the persons ability to do the job. And by "perversion" that would have to be a conviction in a court of law for which the nature of the conviction has relevance. For example, a conviction for fraud would not be good if I expected the person to be in charge of some money. Another example would be any sexual offense and supervision of young and vulnerable adults.

 

Anyway for most jobs in the UK an employer cannot ask you about spent convictions, so for the most part the question is mute. For a scientist, unless the job required security clearance or is supervising children and vulnerable adults he/she will not require any background checks.

 

On a related topic, the UK had recently changed the background checks for teachers to reflect the relevancy. This is a great move in my opinion.

 

If the "perversions" are of a personal nature then I have no worry as the person should leave all that at the door when entering the place of work. If not, then it could become problematic. And even then, how would I know?

[swansont]

I think most academic tenure agreements have a moral turpitude clause in them, but that's because a public scandal reflects poorly on the institution owing to the association. It wouldn't affect the validity of the science anyone did unless the "perversion" was related to academic fraud.

[ajb]

I think most academic tenure agreements have a moral turpitude clause in them..

Are such clauses often called upon and how easy are they do enforce?

 

My thoughts from a human rights and legal standing is that if it is not against the law then what business is it of my employers?

[swansont]

Are such clauses often called upon and how easy are they do enforce?

I don't know how prevalent this is, but I would imagine that professors break laws with similar frequency as other white collar professions, and presumably a lot of felonies fall under this very vague category.

 

My thoughts from a human rights and legal standing is that if it is not against the law then what business is it of my employers?

 

I agree. I think the implication here is that whatever the "perversion" is it would be against the law.

[imatfaal]

Hmm - If the perversion is against the law then this becomes a simple risk assessment, do you wish to take the chance that during the research period your employee is arrested and removed from work and your reseach project is halted? It's pretty much the same as any other job.

 

But if arrest etc. is not a possibility then I would say that science is not the same as many other jobs; it is much more suitable! If you are doing science properly then unusual mindsets, political predispositions, and sexual predilections pay no part whatsoever in your results and achievements; on the whole you work on the data and what that tells you and not on arbitrary choices. Many jobs leave great leeway and even necessitate personal arbitrary decision-making in the absence of full information - gut-instinct guesses, hunches, vague feelings; whilst these exist in every line of work they are minimized in science as a larger part is seeking and following data. I would be much happier that someone with unusual tastes - for instance a desire for consensual extreme violence during sex - worked at the LHC than my local school, or hospital, or as policeman etc

[Popcorn Sutton]

Maybe I should've started a new thread, but I thought it was relevant. Say that a scientist gets hired in for an R&D position with the government and completes the project with one month. After the project is done, is it worth keeping the scientist around?

[imatfaal]

Maybe I should've started a new thread, but I thought it was relevant. Say that a scientist gets hired in for an R&D position with the government and completes the project with one month. After the project is done, is it worth keeping the scientist around?

 

A scientists who completes a government project in one month! Yes; you keep him regardless of his peccadilloes

[swansont]

Maybe I should've started a new thread, but I thought it was relevant. Say that a scientist gets hired in for an R&D position with the government and completes the project with one month. After the project is done, is it worth keeping the scientist around?

 

The US government doesn't really work that way with hiring. For one, it's slow. From the employee's perspective, why take a job that will have a duration of a month, after waiting for several months having the paperwork processed?

 

What you describe is more a situation where you would hire a contractor for a specific job.

[iNow]

From an HR perspective, there's not always a position into which the contractor can be hired. That's often part of the reason they were brought on as a contractor in the first place. "Here's the task. Here's how long you have to do it. Here's how much we'll pay you."

 

When the project is done, if they do a good job it would be in the employers benefit to offer a full-time position, but that's not always possible due to budget and other similar cost restrictions.

 

The fully burdened cost of an employee (salary, benefits, insurance, 401k, taxes, etc.) tend to be high, and companies don't have to worry about that for contractors. They just put a total amount in place... "Here's what we'll pay you to do job X" and it's done. With full-time employees, those burdened costs are also recurring payments instead of one-time outlays.

Edited February 10, 2014 by iNow

[CharonY]

As mentioned above, hiring is generally done within the scope of a position (e.g. research scientist, faculty whatever) and not on a project basis. There are positions with high turnover (postdocs for example). In that case the hiring is still usually for 1-2 years and after fulfilling a particular project, the PI is free to put him/her on another one (or work together to put new proposal together).

[Popcorn Sutton]

 

The US government doesn't really work that way with hiring. For one, it's slow. From the employee's perspective, why take a job that will have a duration of a month, after waiting for several months having the paperwork processed?

 

What you describe is more a situation where you would hire a contractor for a specific job.

What if the job was important? What if it was something that would be very useful and probably save a lot of lives? I'd imagine that if that was the case, the scientist might like to finish it ASAP.

[Phi for All]

What if the job was important? What if it was something that would be very useful and probably save a lot of lives? I'd imagine that if that was the case, the scientist might like to finish it ASAP.

 

It seems reasonable that the more important the job, the more important it would be to take everything into consideration. In detail. In context.

 

That's not to say I think you should go into detail here (please don't, really). You can keep trying to what-if yourself into a tailor-made justification, but I don't think you're going to get much more of a meaningful response without detail and context.

 

If I were you, I would stop trying to act as if it's unimportant (because it will be to many), and start working on why that's not you anymore. It's definitely NOT a non-issue, but it's hopefully a demonstrably PAST issue.

[CharonY]

I was under the impression that it is based on a scenario outlined to Lawrence Krauss. Maybe it would help to provide a transcript to outline the (I assume) hypothetical scenario?

[swansont]

What if the job was important? What if it was something that would be very useful and probably save a lot of lives? I'd imagine that if that was the case, the scientist might like to finish it ASAP.

 

As opposed to the rest of us government scientists, who lollygag around and drag their worthless projects out as long as possible? [/sarcasm] (for the record, I've tried to finish my projects ASAP, and arguably they save lives)

 

If the government wanted a project finished quickly, they would probably hire a contractor to do it, presumably with some kind of no-bid procurement to speed up the process. The path of hiring someone for the short term and then releasing them has too many potholes. Plus, as I've pointed out, I can't fathom you'd have people lined up to go through the months-long government hiring process for a short-term job. The government research jobs I know about are fixed-term. Being hired by the project would make you a contractor, not an employee.

 

IOW, your model of how the system works appears to be flawed.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I want a job with the government, and for the record, I'm farrrr from perverted. My counselor has told me a few things (confidentially) about how perverted people can be. Take BTK for example, he learned at a young age that watching a rooster get it's head cut off was what turned him on, and he became a monster. That's sick. Also, when I was young, me and a friend of mine stumbled across some porn on his dad's computer of a woman using a snake to masturbate. That was messed up to say the least.

A bit of a personal story is that I'm being considered for a support position and R&D is part of the project. I haven't spoken a single word about it to my friends or my family. I haven't said anything about it to anyone. I learned quickly that the job is going to be classified, and that's ok. I really don't want to ruin my chance with it and I look forward to meeting the person who will be in charge. I quoted the guy one year to finish the project, but in reality, I know that it could literally take me one month to do because I've already been experimenting with this type of work for a while. I will not talk about it at all. The most I have said about it is that it's going to be a bunch of boring statistics. I just want to know that once I finish the project, I'm not going to be tossed aside and forgotten. I guess that this may not be the right place to ask these questions because you guys are most likely not going to be the ones in charge, but if I do get the job, it will help a lot of people.

 

As opposed to the rest of us government scientists, who lollygag around and drag their worthless projects out as long as possible? [/sarcasm] (for the record, I've tried to finish my projects ASAP, and arguably they save lives)

 

If the government wanted a project finished quickly, they would probably hire a contractor to do it, presumably with some kind of no-bid procurement to speed up the process. The path of hiring someone for the short term and then releasing them has too many potholes. Plus, as I've pointed out, I can't fathom you'd have people lined up to go through the months-long government hiring process for a short-term job. The government research jobs I know about are fixed-term. Being hired by the project would make you a contractor, not an employee.

 

IOW, your model of how the system works appears to be flawed.

I guess that answered my question. Why hire someone to do classified work and then release them with a thank you?

Edited February 11, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[Acme]

Mmmmmm.... Seems like a passel o' disconnects, diversions, and doubtful discombobulations here to me. The opening post claims a general interest in a poorly defined detriment in a highly skilled circumstance and the poster now has moved to talking about a personal connection which won't be talked about. Fire him/her? I'd have to hire him/her to do that and if an interview went anything like this thread my bs detector would be all a'buzz. I know who you are and I saw what you did.

[Endy0816]

Would just depend on your employment contract. Personally I would plan for the worst case scenario while working towards a permanent position or similar contract in the future.

 

Its not really a case of being thrown away, more of a case of your contract concluding. For that matter not terribly hard to keep in touch with social networks. Might even be advantageous to build up a number of ranking connections rather than just a handful.

 

As to the original question, from what I've seen background checks are not that thorough. Provided it wasn't bad enough to be entered in a law enforcement agency database then you should be fine. Only if you self-report should you be concerned.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Did I say something to make you guys think I was talking about myself?

The first part wasn't about me.