The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not be the slightest concerned about gender equity. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with the proper regulation of the nuclear industry.
There are plenty of spectacularly unqualified political appointees of both genders.
Gender seems to be a backdrop. What is the process to select & install new commissioners? The point is that the agency needs a housecleaning or no new & reasonable designs and deployments will move forward.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
I absolutely agree that we need a massive change in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but I think that a focus on gender equity will get in the way of doing so.
It is hard to accomplish two goals at the same time, and reforming the NRC will be a massive task.
If we get the right results from a 100% male NRC, I will be very happy.
If there are women who are better at pushing the deregulation, I am very happy with them as well.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
"MY male dominated leadership?"
I appointed no one.
Yes, we need to clean house in the NRC, but there is no evidence that it has anything to do with gender.
The fact that you keep leaving snarky replies only undermines your argument. Is that how you think women should act when they are in charge?
It is not about "giving people a shot." It is about pushing through the most important reform. And if you are a CEO, then you obviously have already been given shot.
No gender representation does not matter. The men who sit in the NRC do not "represent" me. Nor will a woman in the NRC "represent" you. You clearly do not even understand what the term "represent" means. It is only appropriate for elected officials, and it has nothing to do with gender.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
Is your company really "within the nuclear power industry?"
Since you were so shrill in your replies, I had my doubts about your credentials, so I did a little bit of research.
You a women-owned consulting firm that focuses on DEI issues, particularly hiring women.
This looks like a company that is primarily about DEI and ESG, not real nuclear engineering.
My guess is your consulting income is from companies who want to score DEI and ESG points, not actually about nuclear engineering.
Government contractors have to do this kind of thing to keep the money flowing. So your income comes indirectly from federal taxpayers. The Breakthrough Institute should have nothing to do with you.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
It might be true that "Gender bias in the nuclear power industry is partially to blame for why the NRC staff are so miserable."
That would have been a much better frame for your article.
And again, since you are a CEO, you have obviously been given at least as much chance to succeed as other people. 99.9% of men never get that high.
My guess is that reform of the NRC will forward your cause much better than appointing a few more women. Differences of outcome is not evidence of discrimination. There have been plenty of incompetent female political appointees as well.
And my guess is that your company's nuclear engineers are dominated by men, correct?
Honestly, this opinion by Morrison is one of the worst examples of senseless agenda-pushing being entirely logic-free. There is nothing in this piece that is really about "gender-equity" (except it's perceived lack at NRC) -- nothing about why striving for or achieving it would benefit the nuclear industry or help NRC function better.
Morrison doesn't like Marzano -- so what? Call for a better candidate and recommend someone on their merits, not their sex or gender.
Do we need better more effective people at NRC? We sure do -- and the best possible people should be installed there -- whatever their gender.
After further research, it is not really clear that she is in the nuclear industry as most people think of "industry."
She runs a women-owned consulting firm that focuses on DEI issues, particularly hiring women.
This looks like a company that is primarily about DEI and ESG, not real nuclear engineering.
My guess is her consulting income is about companies who want to score DEI and ESG points, not actually about nuclear engineering.
Government contractors have to do this kind of thing to keep the money flowing. So she gets income indirectly from federal taxpayers and then uses her influence to lobby for her female clients.
I don't understand why people get so wrapped around the axle with pettiness, though it is very easy to do. We have to learn to disagree constructively (which is what I tried to do in my comment above), and to remember that in disagreement there is learning.
Brooke Morrison ==> Did you write an earlier comment, addressed to me, that is shown as deleted above? You should know that I received a copy of the text from some automaticity on this site. I do hope that you did not actually write it -- it was childish.
(If you didn't write it, you should check with the Breakthrough admins about identity theft.)
You should know that I am a freelance Science Research Journalist and author. I have published hundreds of essays and OpEds.
Your attempts to denigrate my opinion are as vague and evidence-free as your demand that the appointment of a new leader of the NRC must be female.
The NRC should, maybe even must, be headed by the most qualified and knowledgeable individual that can be found. Period.
Are you afraid to say that the real problem has been an administration that does not intend to promote or enhance nuclear power, period? Might that be a good reason to nominate unqualified leaders? Seems pretty brazen to me.
What matters: appointment of NRC commissioners who apply a reasonable cost/benefit analysis and thereby give nuclear industry a chance to flourish -- to dramatically lower U.S. emissions and increase U.S. competitiveness.
What does not matter: DEI "diversity of perspectives" and anything else that undermines meritocracy.
Good job on the research! File the results in the frustrating-but-not-surprising folder. This may be the worst column in the history of the Breakthrough Institute.
I agree about this being "the worst column in the history of the Breakthrough Institute."
My guess is that the real reason for her meltdown is that she knows that DEI and ESG policies are going to be annihilated by Trump, and her "business" will go poof.
The fact that the DEI-focused Biden administration would not hire her clients tells you all you need to know about their qualifications. They must be even lower than Marzanno's, which is quite impressive.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
If you cannot communicate with men in a rational and non-sarcastic manner, then you should not work on a male-dominated profession. Men are not going to go away. You have to learn to communicate with them.
Every reply just diminishes you further…
I think your real concern should be your company going bankrupt once Trump abolishes DEI in the federal government and among federal contractors.
Perhaps that is why you are trying so hard to get women hired to the NRC now.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
Your degree is in “Environmental Engineering”, not Nuclear Science or Nuclear Engineering. Stop pretending that your academic credentials are related to the nuclear industry.
Any degree with term “Environmental” or “Studies” in it is more about ideology than science.
Ridiculous title: "Gender Equity at the NRC Should Not be Optional". The article does not argue that, it only says that qualified females should not be overlooked for unqualified males. And Magoon is correct in his message -- what does gender equity have to do with nuclear policy anyway?
I really enjoy reading the Breakthrough Institute articles, and recommend your site on my Substack column. I have been a follower for well over a decade.
Please do not turn this Substack column into a DEI shakedown.
This woman is about DEI and ESG, not nuclear energy.
It is simple, disolve the Anti-Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My resume: Arkansas Nuclear One and Comanche Peak. When Carter decided to make half the Commission anti-nuclear for "balance" it became worthless and it has not recovered from that. Let the Department Of Energy handle the logistics with the Utilities.
Having read through most of this comment thread, and the essay itself, I think all of you are missing the point. An effective Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or FERC, or DNFSB is not judged by equity, it is judged by quality. Equity has it's place in the discussion, but it should NEVER be the principal criterion.
Nuclear power is among the most complex energy sources we have harnessed. Regulating that source should be done by professionals who understand the physics, chemistry, and operations of nuclear and not by people who are politically connected or who fill in a box on a diversity chart.
If we're going to set standards for performance of 1,000,000 years, or LNT, or "consent based siting," then we better have people who understand the technical ramifications and consequences of hysteria-based bullshit and can convince Congress that quality of regulatory personnel should not be compromised by DEI. Marzano, like Jaczko, is a political hack whose sole purpose is to advance an agenda. The NRC should provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Such assurance is not a function of gender or orientation, is comes only from education and experience.
Wow! The comment section for this article exemplifies why the title of said article is spot on. Yes, the NRC _should_ be concerned about gender equity and make sure it's not passing over great female candidates due to a bias towards men. The implication of so many comments that the writer is somehow implying that a women should be chosen _because_ she is a women are simply insulting.
Yes, that is exactly what “equity” is. It is deliberately appointing people of certain characteristics as compensation for perceived discrimination in the past.
You cannot have equity without appointing a woman because she is a woman. If you are insulted by that, then you do not under what equity is.
I am puzzled -- there seems to be Comment Deletion going on here. At least two comments have been deleted, but who wrote those comments and who deleted them is not clear.
I received an email copy of one of those deleted comments, aimed at me, apparently written by Brooke Morrison. It was, I admit, in such poor taste that I can only hope that somehow the comment author's identity was spoofed by someone NOT Brooke Morrison.
Anyone else get an inappropriate comment from Morrison that has been deleted?
Whether the NRC is foundational to nuclear's potential will depend on whether it is treated as automatically so
With clear signals from its leadership that they think they're doing great after a second "modernize your process" act was necessary due to the complete failure of the first, any future for nuclear modernization relies on not depending on the NRC
Lawmakers should solicit third party concepts for regulatory structures for any reactor as safe or safer than an AP-1000. I would suggest the winner be chosen by a vote of advanced reactor companies. Whether the third party concept eventually becomes law for advanced reactors or not, it would deeply change the NRC's behavior to have a potential replacement
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not be the slightest concerned about gender equity. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with the proper regulation of the nuclear industry.
There are plenty of spectacularly unqualified political appointees of both genders.
Gender seems to be a backdrop. What is the process to select & install new commissioners? The point is that the agency needs a housecleaning or no new & reasonable designs and deployments will move forward.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
I absolutely agree that we need a massive change in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but I think that a focus on gender equity will get in the way of doing so.
It is hard to accomplish two goals at the same time, and reforming the NRC will be a massive task.
If we get the right results from a 100% male NRC, I will be very happy.
If there are women who are better at pushing the deregulation, I am very happy with them as well.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
"MY male dominated leadership?"
I appointed no one.
Yes, we need to clean house in the NRC, but there is no evidence that it has anything to do with gender.
The fact that you keep leaving snarky replies only undermines your argument. Is that how you think women should act when they are in charge?
It is not about "giving people a shot." It is about pushing through the most important reform. And if you are a CEO, then you obviously have already been given shot.
No gender representation does not matter. The men who sit in the NRC do not "represent" me. Nor will a woman in the NRC "represent" you. You clearly do not even understand what the term "represent" means. It is only appropriate for elected officials, and it has nothing to do with gender.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
Is your company really "within the nuclear power industry?"
Since you were so shrill in your replies, I had my doubts about your credentials, so I did a little bit of research.
You a women-owned consulting firm that focuses on DEI issues, particularly hiring women.
This looks like a company that is primarily about DEI and ESG, not real nuclear engineering.
My guess is your consulting income is from companies who want to score DEI and ESG points, not actually about nuclear engineering.
Government contractors have to do this kind of thing to keep the money flowing. So your income comes indirectly from federal taxpayers. The Breakthrough Institute should have nothing to do with you.
https://www.solestiss.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brooke-morrison-phd-30147a40/
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
It might be true that "Gender bias in the nuclear power industry is partially to blame for why the NRC staff are so miserable."
That would have been a much better frame for your article.
And again, since you are a CEO, you have obviously been given at least as much chance to succeed as other people. 99.9% of men never get that high.
My guess is that reform of the NRC will forward your cause much better than appointing a few more women. Differences of outcome is not evidence of discrimination. There have been plenty of incompetent female political appointees as well.
And my guess is that your company's nuclear engineers are dominated by men, correct?
Or are you not practicing what you preach?
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
I detect a note of sarcasm in your reply.
Who do you think are the top 10 men to reform the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Who do you think are the top 10 women to do so?
Why do you believe that the Top 5 women are better at doing so than rank 6-10 among men?
Honestly, this opinion by Morrison is one of the worst examples of senseless agenda-pushing being entirely logic-free. There is nothing in this piece that is really about "gender-equity" (except it's perceived lack at NRC) -- nothing about why striving for or achieving it would benefit the nuclear industry or help NRC function better.
Morrison doesn't like Marzano -- so what? Call for a better candidate and recommend someone on their merits, not their sex or gender.
Do we need better more effective people at NRC? We sure do -- and the best possible people should be installed there -- whatever their gender.
After further research, it is not really clear that she is in the nuclear industry as most people think of "industry."
She runs a women-owned consulting firm that focuses on DEI issues, particularly hiring women.
This looks like a company that is primarily about DEI and ESG, not real nuclear engineering.
My guess is her consulting income is about companies who want to score DEI and ESG points, not actually about nuclear engineering.
Government contractors have to do this kind of thing to keep the money flowing. So she gets income indirectly from federal taxpayers and then uses her influence to lobby for her female clients.
A sweet deal if you can get it.
https://www.solestiss.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brooke-morrison-phd-30147a40/
100%
I don't understand why people get so wrapped around the axle with pettiness, though it is very easy to do. We have to learn to disagree constructively (which is what I tried to do in my comment above), and to remember that in disagreement there is learning.
Keep pushing, ma'am! thank you.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
You do not need to push DEI. It has already been implemented by executive order by the Biden administration on his first day in office.
And there are already federal government regulations that require preferential treatment by government contractors of female-owned businesses.
All you need to do is establish a company that makes money off it, which you obviously did.
How much money do you get in commissions when your females clients get jobs in the nuclear industry?
Isn’t that what this is really about?
The Breakthrough Institute should have nothing to do with you.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
Yes, I do have a PhD in Political Science and Public Policy from Brown university. I was also a professor in the field.
And I have published a number of books.
Brooke Morrison ==> Did you write an earlier comment, addressed to me, that is shown as deleted above? You should know that I received a copy of the text from some automaticity on this site. I do hope that you did not actually write it -- it was childish.
(If you didn't write it, you should check with the Breakthrough admins about identity theft.)
You should know that I am a freelance Science Research Journalist and author. I have published hundreds of essays and OpEds.
Your attempts to denigrate my opinion are as vague and evidence-free as your demand that the appointment of a new leader of the NRC must be female.
The NRC should, maybe even must, be headed by the most qualified and knowledgeable individual that can be found. Period.
Brooke Morrison wrote childish replies to many people.
This is clearly a pattern of behavior.
And then she deleted them to cover her tracks.
Are you afraid to say that the real problem has been an administration that does not intend to promote or enhance nuclear power, period? Might that be a good reason to nominate unqualified leaders? Seems pretty brazen to me.
Is this a parody?
What matters: appointment of NRC commissioners who apply a reasonable cost/benefit analysis and thereby give nuclear industry a chance to flourish -- to dramatically lower U.S. emissions and increase U.S. competitiveness.
What does not matter: DEI "diversity of perspectives" and anything else that undermines meritocracy.
After further research, it is not really clear that she is in the nuclear industry as most people think of "industry."
She runs a women-owned consulting firm that focuses on DEI issues, particularly hiring women.
This looks like a company that is primarily about DEI and ESG, not real nuclear engineering.
My guess is her consulting income is about companies who want to score DEI and ESG points, not actually about nuclear engineering.
Government contractors have to do this kind of thing to keep the money flowing.
https://www.solestiss.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brooke-morrison-phd-30147a40/
Good job on the research! File the results in the frustrating-but-not-surprising folder. This may be the worst column in the history of the Breakthrough Institute.
I agree about this being "the worst column in the history of the Breakthrough Institute."
My guess is that the real reason for her meltdown is that she knows that DEI and ESG policies are going to be annihilated by Trump, and her "business" will go poof.
The fact that the DEI-focused Biden administration would not hire her clients tells you all you need to know about their qualifications. They must be even lower than Marzanno's, which is quite impressive.
The American people are tired of these grifters.
Yes, so tired of these grifters. Why did Ted Norhaus and team think this column was a good idea? Vexing. Very vexing.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
If you cannot communicate with men in a rational and non-sarcastic manner, then you should not work on a male-dominated profession. Men are not going to go away. You have to learn to communicate with them.
Every reply just diminishes you further…
I think your real concern should be your company going bankrupt once Trump abolishes DEI in the federal government and among federal contractors.
Perhaps that is why you are trying so hard to get women hired to the NRC now.
Note: this is responding to a comment from the author, Brooke Morrison, who has since deleted her comment...
Your degree is in “Environmental Engineering”, not Nuclear Science or Nuclear Engineering. Stop pretending that your academic credentials are related to the nuclear industry.
Any degree with term “Environmental” or “Studies” in it is more about ideology than science.
Ridiculous title: "Gender Equity at the NRC Should Not be Optional". The article does not argue that, it only says that qualified females should not be overlooked for unqualified males. And Magoon is correct in his message -- what does gender equity have to do with nuclear policy anyway?
After further research, it is not really clear that she is in the nuclear industry as most people think of "industry."
She runs a women-owned consulting firm that focuses on DEI issues, particularly hiring women.
This looks like a company that is primarily about DEI and ESG, not real nuclear engineering.
My guess is her consulting income is about companies who want to score DEI and ESG points, not actually about nuclear engineering.
Government contractors have to do this kind of thing to keep the money flowing.
https://www.solestiss.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/brooke-morrison-phd-30147a40/
Yeah, and notice that the title of the article has been changed. Even the author realizes it.
And she also deleted at least four snide replies directed at commenters.
Very unprofessional.
Dear Editors,
I really enjoy reading the Breakthrough Institute articles, and recommend your site on my Substack column. I have been a follower for well over a decade.
Please do not turn this Substack column into a DEI shakedown.
This woman is about DEI and ESG, not nuclear energy.
It is simple, disolve the Anti-Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My resume: Arkansas Nuclear One and Comanche Peak. When Carter decided to make half the Commission anti-nuclear for "balance" it became worthless and it has not recovered from that. Let the Department Of Energy handle the logistics with the Utilities.
Having read through most of this comment thread, and the essay itself, I think all of you are missing the point. An effective Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or FERC, or DNFSB is not judged by equity, it is judged by quality. Equity has it's place in the discussion, but it should NEVER be the principal criterion.
Nuclear power is among the most complex energy sources we have harnessed. Regulating that source should be done by professionals who understand the physics, chemistry, and operations of nuclear and not by people who are politically connected or who fill in a box on a diversity chart.
If we're going to set standards for performance of 1,000,000 years, or LNT, or "consent based siting," then we better have people who understand the technical ramifications and consequences of hysteria-based bullshit and can convince Congress that quality of regulatory personnel should not be compromised by DEI. Marzano, like Jaczko, is a political hack whose sole purpose is to advance an agenda. The NRC should provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Such assurance is not a function of gender or orientation, is comes only from education and experience.
Wow! The comment section for this article exemplifies why the title of said article is spot on. Yes, the NRC _should_ be concerned about gender equity and make sure it's not passing over great female candidates due to a bias towards men. The implication of so many comments that the writer is somehow implying that a women should be chosen _because_ she is a women are simply insulting.
Yes, that is exactly what “equity” is. It is deliberately appointing people of certain characteristics as compensation for perceived discrimination in the past.
You cannot have equity without appointing a woman because she is a woman. If you are insulted by that, then you do not under what equity is.
I am puzzled -- there seems to be Comment Deletion going on here. At least two comments have been deleted, but who wrote those comments and who deleted them is not clear.
I received an email copy of one of those deleted comments, aimed at me, apparently written by Brooke Morrison. It was, I admit, in such poor taste that I can only hope that somehow the comment author's identity was spoofed by someone NOT Brooke Morrison.
Anyone else get an inappropriate comment from Morrison that has been deleted?
Yes, I can confirm that this is a pattern of behavior by Brooke Morrison.
She gave me at least eight snide replies, and then deleted them afterwards.
Brooke Morrison deleted all her comments that I replied to above, probably out of embarrassment.
Ironically, after all her snide remarks directed at me, she sent me a LinkedIn invite...
LOL
No, it is not a spoof as the person used Brooke Morrison's LinkedIn account.
It really is Brooke Morrison... a CEO.
You cannot make this stuff up.
Whether the NRC is foundational to nuclear's potential will depend on whether it is treated as automatically so
With clear signals from its leadership that they think they're doing great after a second "modernize your process" act was necessary due to the complete failure of the first, any future for nuclear modernization relies on not depending on the NRC
Lawmakers should solicit third party concepts for regulatory structures for any reactor as safe or safer than an AP-1000. I would suggest the winner be chosen by a vote of advanced reactor companies. Whether the third party concept eventually becomes law for advanced reactors or not, it would deeply change the NRC's behavior to have a potential replacement