As the Tim Hunt storm continues unabated, I find myself pondering my decision to break the story from the World Conference of Science Journalists in South Korea about his culturally insensitive and sexist remarks.



After an empty apology and then declaring that “he stood by his comments”, Hunt has taken the spotlight and somewhat self-indulgently allowed it to remain focused on him.

The sociologist Andre Lorde defines sexism as “the belief in the inherent superiority of one sex and thereby the right to dominance”. The Tim Hunt story has followed a typical pattern of oppression. First there is a hollow apology. Then there is claim about being misunderstood. Next there is an outcry from the establishment.

So it’s no surprise that a growing number of people, mainly men, have come forward to support Hunt. Hunt’s interview in the Observer at his lovely house in rural Hertfordshire is full of anecdotes of him doing the grocery shopping and cooking. (A modern reconstructed man?) It ends with both Hunt and his wife, Mary Collins, complaining that they have been “hung out to dry” by the various scientific establishments.



Deborah Blum, an American colleague who also was at the conference lunch and heard Hunt’s remarks, has published a piece about the incident. She asked him to clarify his comments but he stood by them. She has storified this on Twitter.



I do have sympathy for Hunt. Like everyone else I find the “internet tidal wave effect” horrifying. I thought it might happen and that there was a possibility that too much attention would be turned on Hunt, so I took considerable steps to ensure that the story moved on to the bigger picture. I asked the Royal Society to comment on its own policies for eradicating sexism in science. The Royal Society has been extremely quiet since then, apart from a few mutterings from the chair of its diversity committee, Uta Firth, about “slow science” on the radio, which frankly sounds like an excuse for inaction and delay for the radical change that is inevitable and urgent.



A petition to reinstate Hunt has 2,000 signatures. One for the Royal Society to elect a female president has 200

Hunt had a chance when there was a lot of attention focused on him to use that moment for good. He could have apologised properly; he could have talked about the brilliant work carried out by women scientists. This was an opportunity to turn a sorry mess into a positive advantage for everyone, including himself. However he has chosen to whine about how mean people are and this does not accomplish anything. UCL say that Hunt offered his resignation and was not forced to resign.



During Hunt’s outburst, the female Korean scientists and engineers were stunned and confused. However, they have now spoken. They were deeply offended and didn’t get Hunt’s “jokes”. Nobody was laughing. Hunt now claims he added the words “now seriously” before going on to praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. “The words ‘now seriously’ make it very clear that I was making a joke, albeit a very bad one, but they were not mentioned in the first reports and I was deluged with hate mail,” Hunt said. He did not say this, nor did he praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. I wish he had; things would have been so much better.



The trickle of privileged men defending Hunt has grown into a river. It began with Boris Johnson, the mayor of London. The physicist Brian Cox swiftly followed him on lunchtime national radio. Cox endorsed Hunt and said he shouldn’t have to resign.



Next eight Nobel laureates, plus the ubiquitous Richard Dawkins, have come out in support of Hunt. There are over 2,000 signatures on an online petition to reinstate him to his honorary post at UCL. Contrast this with 200+ signatures on a petition that I started calling on the Royal Society to elect its first female president. The Nobel eight made an idiotic attempt to equate the upset caused by Hunt’s ill advised and sexist comments with some kind of “chilling effect” on academics.

This is an absurd idea and deserves to be outed for what it is, a deeply cynical attempt to say that scientists can do and say what they like. In the name of academic freedom? Is science so special that any old sexist (or for that matter racist) words that they utter are allowed? The answer is and must be a resounding no.

As David Colquhoun pointed out in the Lab Times, Hunt was asked the following question in an interview last year: “In your opinion, why are women still under-represented in senior positions in academia and funding bodies?”

Hunt replied: “I’m not sure there is really a problem, actually. People just look at the statistics. I dare, myself, think there is any discrimination, either for or against men or women. I think people are really good at selecting good scientists but I must admit the inequalities in the outcomes, especially at the higher end, are quite staggering. And I have no idea what the reasons are. One should start asking why women being under-represented in senior positions is such a big problem. Is this actually a bad thing? It is not immediately obvious for me ... is this bad for women? Or bad for science? Or bad for society? I don’t know, it clearly upsets people a lot.”

There have been many excuses volunteered for Hunt’s behaviour. Some have said he’s old. The science PR organisation the UK Science Media Centre describes him as “a crusty old dinosaur” and “a bit bonkers”. If you have been in the same room as Hunt, as I have, you know that this is nonsense. Hunt is still at top of his intellectual game.

But before Hunt ends up getting the final word. Please Nobel eight, Richard Dawkins, Brian Cox and even Boris Johnson, stop distracting us away from the real issue. Please put your energy and your status into action. It’s about sexism in science. Royal Society take heed. Now is the time for radical change and action. Women have had enough!