Very true. But you made a controversial statement without backing it up. Then you replied with a typical "just a forum" excuse. Which probably means: You can't find sources to back up your statement, or available sources contradict your statement.

If someone wants a source to my comments, I'll provide it as best I can.

> But you made a controversial statement without backing it up.

1. I didn't make the original statement

2. The reason I became involved in this debate is because the original statement seemed very far from controversial to me and I was rather dumbfounded that anyone felt the need to ask for supporting evidence.

The original claim was "things are not where they should be" and the context was "a person's ability to practice science to the best of their potential" irrespective of their nationality, gender, ethnicity etc.

For this to be controversial someone would have to be making the rather extreme counter-claim that scientific achievement is based solely on ability.

You can see by the reponses that this is quite controversial.

Maybe, but the burden of proof lies with the person who made the argument. ("things are not where they should be")

> You can see by the responses that this is quite controversial.

I don't think the tangent this discussion has taken is any indication that the original claim was controversial - merely that it's very easy to get bogged down in meta-discussions that detract from the actual issue being discussed. I don't think anyone could reasonably dispute the original statement - unless their interpretation of it was wildly different to mine. If that's the case then it's not lack of supporting evidence that's the problem - it's clarity of communication.