"There is a grain of truth in every joke". On my opinion, this extreme over-reaction from the side of scientific community is rather an act of  a panic "manifestation" of being totally gender-equal along with the "be tolerant"-affront in all aspects of our current lives. Sir Tim Hunt just touched the nerve, the others had to react somehow. But these harmful sanctions are absolutely absurd...

I do not know about this case and will only make general comments that may have relevance to the case.

Intellectual life cannot exist without the right to express our opinion which implies opinions that are judged inacceptable by other.  The right of expression has to include the right of inappropriate expression.  If an academic institution is allowed to fire an academic on the basis that this academic expressed inappropriate opinions then what is the current standard of appropriateness become the limit of the right of expression and this boundary will likely to get narrower and narrower.  Noam Chomsky defended the right of neo-Nazis to express opinions that negated the reality of the Holocaust on this very basis that freedom of expression do have to include  the expression of inapropriate opinions.  I would not extend this freedom to the point where the opinion is clearly advocating violent actions and genocide but we are far far from this extreme case in the alleged accusion against Tim Hunt.  

I think the very quick move on the part of the university to fire him might be another  symptom of the extreme political correctness of the universities which are so much dependent on private funding.  Attracting private funding then  become in conflict with the mandate of this institution of protection of  academic freedom.  

This article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html

presents what Tim Hunt has said as being said ironically and meaning exactly the opposite that the words taken litterally would mean.

I do not think that is a problem linked only to Tim Hunt.

Many know scientists – the why are know is another big problem - I do not think that their Scientific Merit is the reason – are working on the basis of small communities – “friends”, covering CEO of big companies, reviewers, editors of well-known Journals, Presidents of well know Universities or type like of organizations.  Many examples.

The system is extremely corrupted. If, you are not one of them or if you do not accept this system you are out of the system. I do not want to speak about my 1st patent in USA that covers PML and HIV – I was the 1st, it is published and one can easily find what happened– from the moment I have asked to get my rights on it, I was disappeared from the “intellectual system” of the well-known Scientists. This system is terrible and this system controls science progress.  It is a real dictatorship.

About Tim Hunt and many others, I do not think that they deserve Nobel price. Be scientist is fisrt of all be Human. I propose that many of them should find another type of job.

Sir Tim Hunt: my gratitude to female scientists for their support

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/sir-tim-hunt-gratitude-female-scientists-support-joke

Dear Louis,

Corruption has nothing to do with sex - female or male. Corruption is a reality in the scientific community;  If we want to built a small list of them we will need time... The system is closed and this closed system is the basis of the corruption. They carry and exchange "hats" between  them and this is a demonstration of their "power".  A terrible situation.  Tim Hunt just exposed the system and they forced to put him out. A beautiful world.

Dear Vassilis,

I am not understanding the connection you are making between the corruption of the scientific community and this affair with Tim Hunt.  Why do you think that Tim Hunt exposed the system?  

I see different aspects of this affair:

- The fast and rapid linchage through  social network of a scientist.  Social network are totally irresponsible in general.  What propagate faster is what correspond to stereotypes.  Fast thinking = No thinking, fast reaction, no responsibility for your own action.  It is the ananonymous culture of a mob.

Here a quote from Jaron Lanier:

''“This is the thing that continues to scare me. You see in history the capacity of people to congeal—like social lasers of cruelty. That capacity is constant.”

“Social lasers of cruelty?” I repeat.

 “I just made that up,” Lanier says. “Where everybody coheres into this cruelty beam....Look what we’re setting up here in the world today. We have economic fear combined with everybody joined together on these instant twitchy social networks which are designed to create mass action. What does it sound like to you? It sounds to me like the prequel to potential social catastrophe. I’d rather take the risk of being wrong than not be talking about that.”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/what-turned-jaron-lanier-against-the-web-165260940/?is_pocket=1&page=5

- The facts were totally distorted and  the different institutions for journalists have not done their job of sorting out the fact and to restablish the truth

- The UCL has not follow a due process of sorting out the facts, and act responsibly with a due process  and prioritizing freedom of opinions.  Here money MAY have played a role which is an aspect of the corroding effect of money on the institution..  The same could be said about the BRS.

Dear Louis,

Tim Hunt is present in the system long ago. I have participated in his lectures. I feel that the system surrounding Tim Hunt has been exposed.  The noise is not a good sign.  This could justfies this decision.  You have to know that some manuscripts are accepted in big journal in a day when the "friends" Editors and Senior scientists are in the same cycle.  Only Tim Hunt knows the details.

"There is a grain of truth in every joke". On my opinion, this extreme over-reaction from the side of scientific community is rather an act of  a panic "manifestation" of being totally gender-equal along with the "be tolerant"-affront in all aspects of our current lives. Sir Tim Hunt just touched the nerve, the others had to react somehow. But these harmful sanctions are absolutely absurd...

My sincere gratitude to respondents for these recent comments.  Until 18 hours ago it appeared that the question, posted over a silent month ago, had answered itself.  Some thoughts on a couple of the comments:

            Stefan Gruner is right to wonder about the "tone" and intention of the controversial words.  Morally, this is surely all-important.  But the issue is only partly ethical although it reeks of blatant hypocrisy: who among us is without sin?  And, as sins go, this was a peccadillo.

         There is also the practical matter of loss as Louis Brassard notes.  The world would be a far poorer place if our brightest and most creative minds were subjected to such draconian demands, whatever their morals or intentions.  By any standard, the composer Wagner and the painter Caravaggio, a murderer no less, were nasty people; and not on rare occasions as in this instance but often.  Yet our lives are richer because of them.  And not only the arts would suffer but something more fundamental.  In John Stuart Mill's words:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

            Louis substantiates this with the excellent Chomsky example.

            Again, my thanks.

I think that Sir Tim Hunt analysis is often true, as in normal life it happens.