It is easy to agree with the representatives of the organisation Science & Public that the more researchers who are women and who work at the small and medium-sized institutions of higher education should occur in the public debate. At the same time travelling their article and the report it is based on a few questions.
Why they do not take up any of the many other identitetsmarkörer which are now such a crucial part of the political discussion. One can think of ethnicity, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, geography, and social class?
I dare say that researchers with a non-Swedish ethnicity, young researchers, researchers with more severe disabilities, researchers who do not come from the lutheran culture, researchers who are not heterosexual, researchers who have a working-class background, and researchers who live in rural areas, and also difficult to be under-represented in the heavier forums. Is there any logic in that just two of the many grounds for discrimination that you can think of in the type of study the article is based on?
“), understood as that it is what it does and accomplishes, not who (what sort of) man is, should be counted. Now, when an organisation Science & Public, that strives to strengthen the research status in the society, breaks with this basic principle of scientific activity, it would be interesting to know what the organisation believes that iran should be replaced with.