Oct 2, 2007

Comment of the Week

From the

Los Alamos chemist among this year's MacArthur Fellows Program awardees

post:

It's a chemistry thing, you wouldn't understand...

Read the post for context.

--Gussie

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some of the posts over at the My Hang Huynh story were very discouraging.

Yes, I'm not a chemist and I don't understand these people and their petty and vindictive attitudes towards fellow colleagues.

Anonymous said...

Some of the posts on Dr Huynh been truly disgusting. We should celebrate the accomplishments of Dr. Huynh. The outside world also sees these accomplishments which gives some credence that Los Alamos does have top people and that the LANL is worthwhile and worth funding. Congratulations to Dr. My Hang Huynh. When I saw the announcement of this award in the paper I felt proud to be LANL.

Anonymous said...

I'll repeat my question from before. There is an fascinating human-interest story. A boat person refugee makes good. The science is readily understandable by a lay audience. Of course the MacArthur Foundation would love it.

Some aspects of it are odd. What is going on? And why is asking "what is going on" considered vicious?

Anonymous said...

2:11pm

First of all you call her a "boat person", which is offensive. Than you say "The science is readily understandable by a lay audience. Of course the MacArthur Foundation would love it." I can only guess you are saying that since it is really understandable to the lay public
and that she is a "boat person" that the MacArthur Foundation would love it. Again this is very offensive.

You do not seem to be very familliar with the MacArthur Foundation. It does not make awards on the grounds that you implied. It makes awards for truly outstanding results. I would say that it is second best award to a Nobel prize that is how big it is. Just look at the other scientists who have won this award.

She did great we should be proud. What more needs to be said.

Anonymous said...

You seem to be easily offended.

Anonymous said...

1:34 PM "When I saw the announcement of this award in the paper I felt proud to be LANL."

Why? They have essentially fired her. She is no longer allowed to step foot in a lab. The institution has ostracized her and why hasn't Terry Wallace or MIke Anastascio announced this in special release? Why is this MacArthur (almost a Nobel Prize winner) not being displayed on the Labs outside and inside homepages? I would think these two dopes would be taking all kinds of credit (like they normally do). What is going on here?

Feel proud to be LANL? More like embarrassed.

Anonymous said...

The real story is how the laboratory has mistreated Dr. My Hang Huynh leading her to a disability. Where is that story?

Gussie Fink-Nottle said...

Apparently, it hasn't been written yet, 8:08pm. If it does get written, we will provide a copy here.

--Gussie

Anonymous said...

Yeah 8:08 pm, where is that story? Care to share? We are all ears.

Anonymous said...

"I would say that it is second best award to a Nobel prize that is how big it is. Just look at the other scientists who have won this award. She did great we should be proud. What more needs to be said."

Well I think more needs be said. This brilliant young lady should get the Nobel prize.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Dr. Huynh. The Lab should hire a few more people like Dr. Huynh. Too bad that they have treated her bad and abuse her to the point of permanent disability. I heard that chemistry division refused to hire her, like so many other women. Why doesn't someone in Lab legal or staff relations look into this and help Dr. Huynh?

Anonymous said...

OK 9:10. Name one competent woman not hired by Chemistry.

Now I challenge you to name one incompetent man hired by chemistry.

Oops, did I undercut my own argument?

OK, make it two, umm three, no ten incompetent men.

Pinky and The Brain said...

10/2/07 8:53 PM said,
"Well I think more needs be said. This brilliant young lady should get the Nobel prize."

From the nobelprize.org website:
Qualified Nominators
– The Nobel Prize in Chemistry
The right to submit proposals for the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:


1. Swedish and foreign members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences;
2. Members of the Nobel Committees for Chemistry;
3. Nobel Laureates in Chemistry;
4. Permanent and assistant professors in the sciences of Chemistry at the universities and institutes of technology of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm;
5. Holders of corresponding chairs in at least six universities or university colleges selected by the Academy of Sciences with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution over the different countries and their seats of learning; and
6. Other scientists from whom the Academy may see fit to invite proposals.

Decisions as to the selection of the teachers and scientists referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 above shall be taken each year before the end of the month of September.

Anonymous said...

"Just look at the other scientists who have won this award."

Here are the chemists:

Jacqueline K. Barton
Angela Belcher
R. Stephen Berry
Carolyn Bertozzi
My Hang V. Huynh
Laura L. Kiessling
Stephen Lee
Michael A. Marletta
Todd Martinez
Brooks Pate
Jane Richardson
Amy Rosenzweig
Mark S. Wrighton

Interestingly, Mark Wrighton also received the E.O. Lawrence Award and the MacArthur Fellowship in 1983, although he has not yet won a Nobel Prize.

Anonymous said...

I know Barton, Belcher, Bertozzi, Kiessling, Lee, Rosenzweig, and Wrighton. My Hang Huynh is NO Barton, Belcher, Bertozzi, Kiessling, Lee, Rosenzweig, or Wrighton.

Pinky and The Brain said...

Is that you, Lloyd Bentsen?

Anonymous said...

10/4/07 11:09 PM wrote "Believe it or not it appears Staff relations and legal are part of the problem."

Well, Duh.

"This women is brilliant and was treated terribly by the old DX management and is still treated terribly by the current lab management."

Can you say lawsuit?

"Several investigations have supposedly taken place."

Oh I am sure. LANL management and Staff Relations like to have many investigations with the hope that they get the answer they are looking for. It is a Terry Wallace quaity trait.

"It appears the lab doesn't want to know the truth and will continue to try to cover up their continued ridicule and antagonistic accusations toward her."

Sorry, they know the truth but they have decided that Huynh will be the scapegoat.

"So you decide who is wrong a small group of scientists here trying to cover their rears and their inability to manage or several groups of scientists outside the lab that judge her on her performance and accomplishments."

Again, never trust what LANL management says about anyone. Since 2004 they have repeatedly targeted individuals and made them fry. Remember what Sue Seestrom said back in 2004 ... sometimes good people have to be taken down for the good of the institution.

Anonymous said...

LANL got rid of an unstable troublemaker.

MHH gets paid a good salary on disability.

Sounds like win-win!!

Anonymous said...

8:44 AM:

LANL got rid of an unstable troublemaker.

What consistutes a "troublemaker"? I would like a definition since I would guess any "troublemakers" are the first on the RIF chopping block. I hope MHH sues and wins and is the first of many huge lawsuits against the Lab during the RIF-age.

Anonymous said...

MHH does not have a case against LANL. That is why organizations like LANL like kicking people upstairs, putting them on disability, etc. How can someone be harmed when they continue to make their salary?

Anonymous said...

10:33 AM - and that is why the Lab will make her a Senior Lab Fellow, just like Press, Sattleberger, and Younger. It is the only trophy (aside from the Nobel prize) that she has been after and has not received from the Lab ... yet.

Anonymous said...

"
I know Barton, Belcher, Bertozzi, Kiessling, Lee, Rosenzweig, and Wrighton. My Hang Huynh is NO Barton, Belcher, Bertozzi, Kiessling, Lee, Rosenzweig, or Wrighton.

10/5/07 9:45 PM"

Well I know these people too and can tell you right now My Hang Huynh is as good or better than these people. I do not know who you are but you have no idea what you are talking about. Also I bet you do not know these people or any other chemists. You sound like a troll to me.

Anonymous said...

Watch out for the new drug tests, 7:28, since you are clearly stoned right now.

You would seriously put a new explosive chemical on the same level as DNA-based electrical conduction (Barton), soft matter templating of minerals to imitate sea-creatures (Belcher), cell communication (Bertozzi), and conducting polymers before anyone else had a clue (Wrighton).

If she didn't have a made-for-TV-movie story, MHH would not get a second look from anyone.

Anonymous said...

And you - 7:28 PM - sound like a MHH to me. Why don't you get elected to the NAS or even the AAAS or try to get an ACS award and then we will talk.

Anonymous said...

10/6/07 8:16 PM, careful what you ask for. I'm willing to bet Tom Meyer is penning her ACS award nomination as we speak.

Anonymous said...

"Watch out for the new drug tests, 7:28, since you are clearly stoned right now.

You would seriously put a new explosive chemical on the same level as DNA-based electrical conduction (Barton), soft matter templating of minerals to imitate sea-creatures (Belcher), cell communication (Bertozzi), and conducting polymers before anyone else had a clue (Wrighton).

If she didn't have a made-for-TV-movie story, MHH would not get a second look from anyone.

10/6/07 8:15 PM"

I am glad you can look up people on google. As I said I know the work of these people better than you. What MHH already did is way more important than anything these other people did. Come on Angela Belcher? That stuff is cute but that is it. Also conducting polymers sorry thats Heeger. Barton? A ton of better people have worked on conduction in DNA, and it is still useless. You really do not get it? She made something that will be usefull and
will actually have an impact.

I do not mean to be blunt but you
really are not very knowledgeable
of science or how it works. You just sound like a worthless jealous piece of. What have you ever done for the lab or for science? Lets have a name if you are so great.

Anonymous said...

If "usefull (sic) and will actually have an impact" is your criterion, then I would have to nominate Nicholas Terrett.

Or maybe Margaret Thatcher (yes, that Margaret Thatcher), who made a more lasting contribution to chemistry than MHH (hint: look up Mr Whippy).

I don't think either Terrett or Thatcher needed a sugar daddy to submit their papers for them in PNAS.

Anonymous said...

All MHH has is one PNAS, which was never peer-reviewed. Reminds me of the cold-fusion days. Nuff said. It sounds like 9:31 pm is from a Celine Dion skit on SNL, "I'm the greatest chemist (singer) in the world!"

Anonymous said...

PS:

"As I said I know the work of these people better than you."

No, you don't.

(nanny, nanny, boo-boo)

;P

Anonymous said...

10:22pm
10:30pm
10:32pm

I guess you are all the same poster. God I hope you do not work at Los Alamos. Do you realize how embarrassing you make
LANL look? Somebody does some great work at Los Alamos and wins a tremedously prestegious prize and you make your viscous and disgusting comments.

Again what have you ever done that was so great? By the way I know the good chemists at the lab and none of them would say the things you are saying. So you are some low life troll or just really delusional.

Anonymous said...

10:22 and 10:32 are the same person. That is why I said "PS" in the 10:32 post.

So the "good chemists at the lab" would say that the one PNAS paper is better than the sum of Bertozzi's work? That speaks more about the "good chemists at the lab" than it does about MHH.

And how is asking about what happened "viscous (sic) and disgusting"?

Anonymous said...

11:36 PM ... "By the way I know the good chemists at the lab and none of them would say the things you are saying."

Uhh, yes they would.

Anonymous said...

"11:36 PM ... "By the way I know the good chemists at the lab and none of them would say the things you are saying."

Uhh, yes they would.

10/8/07 9:04 PM

Yaa right. Sorry there is no way in hell you work in LANL or that you are even a scientist. Sign your name. I do work at Los Alamos and I am a scientist so I do not want outside people to think that you have anything to do with LANL.

As I said before I do know the good chemists at the lab and what you have said is a complete insult to them and you should be ashamed. They are good people and they would never say these things. Do not put words into their mouths. If you stand by your statments than sign your name.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the dialog. You have been worth a barrel of laughs, which I shall always fondly remember.

Some of the highlights are
> your contention that Boncella, Gordon, and Runde should be lab fellows,
> your contention that a metal-dihydrogen complex would save the world (or at least your group’s budget) for fuel cells,
> your contention that an unreviewed PNAS paper is worth more than Carolyn Bertozzi’s or Angela Belcher’s corpus of work,
> your belief that anyone who disagrees with you is not a scientist.

I look forward to hearing your lunatic voice again on another thread.

Anonymous said...

Hey 2:55 pm - shame on you! Boncella, Gordon, and Runde are some of C-Division's most prominent and visible TSMs. These guys bring in numerous PDs and have huge publication records. Without them, the Lab would be nothing. They should be Lab fellows!!

Anonymous said...

OMG! You are too precious.

Wait - are you just trolling me? You can't possibly believe any of this. Please tell me you really believe what you write.

Anonymous said...

If by "prominent and visible" you mean foulmouthed and lews, I might grant you one of the above.

Anonymous said...

More like back-stabbing, two-faced, selfish and drunken assholes. Well, I guess if that is what you are looking for, then you have qualified Lab fellow material.

Anonymous said...

Come on, 10:47, Gordon is not a drunkard, he is a well-respected scientific leader and line manager in C-Division. You just sound like someone who is not a chemist and who is trying to bad-mouth the great chemists at the lab. Go troll somewhere else ... buh-bye!!!

Anonymous said...

For us noobs, are they all "back-stabbing, two-faced, selfish and drunken assholes."

Or is one a back-stabbing asshole, the second a two-faced asshole, and the third a drunken asshole.

Could you put together a little table with a legend, such as:

Table:
Smith: tf, d, ah
Jones: bs, tf, ah
Doe: d, ah

Legend:
tf = two-faced
bs = back-stabbing
d = drunken
ah = asshole

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Nothing screams out leadership like a "Not Escortable" gray badge.

Only in Chemistry Division...

Anonymous said...

Not escortable gray badges are just fine, as long as you don't make that person a GL or anything.

Wait, what? Did that happen?

Anonymous said...

How petty and vindictive people can some of you people be? How sad!

Anonymous said...

If what 6:49 AM and 7:24 AM are implying is true, how can their comments be viewed as petty and vindictive? In the age of pending RIFs and accountability, it sounds to me like someone from S-6 should be notified.

Anonymous said...

10/9/07 11:23 PM - "For us noobs, are they all "back-stabbing, two-faced, selfish and drunken assholes. Or is one a back-stabbing asshole, the second a two-faced asshole, and the third a drunken asshole."

You asked, here are the facts according to your table and legend:

Boncella: tf, bs, ah
Gordon: d, bs, ah
Runde: tf, bs, ah x2 (includes his honey)