Hey everyone!
I hope you enjoyed the first three sections of Science Under The Scope. Before we jump into the content of the text, I want to mention why I chose it. This course is a “writing composition” class so we get a chance to consider different forms of “writing”. Most of my students think that writing is the five paragraph argument essay they had to do in high school, but it’s so much more! I love this graphic text because it shows how something “non-traditional” can advance critical science discourse. Remember that there are always ways to communicate beyond the written word! I’ll talk more about this throughout the course, I just wanted to point it out for anyone who’s been into comics or coding and thought those genres weren’t writing.
I want to consider this statement at the top of the third section “the biggest danger of objectivity is that it allows us to pretend that science is entirely neutral” → this fixation on “objectivity” is a way to distract us from the reality that nothing is neutral because no science is created in a vacuum. But let’s sit with this for a second, because I feel like students frequently get uncomfortable pushing up against the myth of neutrality. What does it mean for you that science needs to be neutral? How does it challenge your understanding of the field if it turns out the science is biased? Does it make you uncomfortable? (spoiler, it’s okay if the answer is yes, it made me uncomfortable the first time I realized it).
Now let’s tie this into writing composition: the same hypothesis holds true – most research journal articles that contain this “objective” research are crafted in a genre (specific format) meant to elicit authority (voice). “The information contained here is important because we said so (that’s rhetoric!).” The way facts are displayed is deliberate and makes it difficult to refute (intentionally, again rhetoric). So what does it mean if a journal article looked more like this text that we’re reading and contained critique of the existing systems that are in place?
For this week, please continue to read Science Under the Scope. I’d like you to get through section four, five, six, and seven and then consider: who didn’t go into science because of one or more structural barriers and what impact does that have on how we currently perceive scientific accomplishments? Throw your ideas in the comments section please!
The people that did not go into sciences because of one or more structural barriers were people who targeted due to being part of a minority group or sexism due to their race or gender. According to the national academics of science and engineer “Despite changing national demographics and an increasing respect for diversity and inclusion as drivers of performance in science, engineering, and medicine, Black Americans remain underrepresented in these disciplines. Racism and bigotry are major contributors to this imbalance, which has negative consequences for individuals, health-care institutions, and the country as a whole. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine launched the Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine in 2019 to identify key levers, drivers, and disruptors in government, industry, health care, and higher education where actions can have the greatest impact on increasing Black men and Black women’s participation in science, medicine, and engineering.”
Minorities community with less power often are not included in scientific thought or recognition because the group with the most power including higher ranks society or people can easily affect science through their voice or ideas as they’re seen as intelligent or productive. That’s bad because science should use everyone opinions or bias in order to develop better research and also over years , the way one thing is perceived changes just like how things keep developing , Science is developing too .
A stark realization that I never quite clearly grasped was how in the biggest discoveries of science, I never saw someone who looked like me or anyone from my ethnic community or my local community. Tapping into the historical locatedness aspect section 7 talked about, many parts of the world have dealt with the oppressive forces of colonization for centuries. There were laws in place in avoid these marginalized communities from progressing or being involved in society even, let alone have the means to be present in scientific discovery. If BIPOC visionaries of the past and present were not pushed down using systemic racism, with barriers coming in different ways for every community of color, we would see more of ourselves present in scientific accomplishments. Accomplishments that address our needs, accomplishments we can see ourselves to be a part in too.
How does the progress in renewable energy cater to the average young person, working multiple jobs to help their family have a roof over their head? The lack of accessibility for the disabled community in educational spaces, the lack of resources in underfunded schools (usually in communities of color) not letting bright students find their potential, the list of barriers go on… How many of the scientists we’ve seen in textbooks have lived that experience and went onto discovering something earth-shattering? Scientific accomplishments can thus often invoke no emotion in us if 1) too many of said discoveries seem to have no correlation to the life we live or 2) we don’t see ourselves in the people at the forefront of such cutting-edge research. The structural barriers continue to benefit and advance those who were already benefitting from the system in place, while the voices/communities left unheard have their own questions unanswered and needs unmet, bridging the gap in progress even more with time.
Minorities didn’t go into science because it is a marginalized field. Minorities can include people of color, different genders, disabilities, different statuses, etc. This affects how we perceive scientific accomplishments because it’s very one-sided. Currently, science accomplishments give a country more prestige over another, when the accomplishments should be for the benefit of everyone. Science accomplishments are not entirely objective because they don’t take into consideration everyone’s perspective to get the full picture. This is due to the lack of diverse representation in science.
-The people who are outside of the marginalized group didn’t get into science because of their racism, sexism, classism and ableism. They are excluded from being part of the research. Due to the dominant group having the power, their loudest voice is being heard and science is being more affected by them. Moreover, the impact this has on how we perceive scientific accomplishments is that the objectivity towards science is mostly the one with the power. In the past all the theories were made based on the group that had the power whereas the perspective from marginalized groups were not valued. Throughout the times, more theories were being created which conclude that the science made by the dominant group isn’t what it actually should be. Therefore, If there would be people from lower class communities then the science could be better and will have strong objectives because of the multiple perspectives from the people who are from different communities .
Oftentimes marginalized groups stray away from going into science, because of structural barriers, like discrimination. A desire for “objectivity” ignores the experiences, knowledge, and perspectives of minorities in favor of biases that have been embedded in science since its beginning. Conversely, in order to increase the scope of people who benefit from science would require strong objectivity, which enables the inclusion of minority perspectives. Supremacism has been ingrained into science so deeply to the point where it creates the illusion that there is no room for minorities. Prioritizing the perspective of privileged groups not only empowers these groups, but this power is taken away from marginalized individuals. Scientific accomplishments today are approached with a sense of rarity and praise, rather than awareness of the ways in which the proponents of science may limit others from being heard. If the scope of accessibility within science was increased, scientific accomplishments would easily be more common, thus making science seem less selective and honorable. In other words, individuals who hold the power within science may avoid the perspective of marginalized people, because it has the potential to remove the sense of status that is typically associated with scientific achievements.
People from the marginalized group didn’t went to science because of discrimination towards them as an racism, sexism, classism…Only the dominant group has been a part of science. Which means that these people were able to take part in science, use their perspectives, and knowledge towards science because their louder voices are heard and according to them, they are right. The impact that this situation has towards the accomplishments of science is that science would have been much better if everyone was included without any bias in the society. Society affects science because people who have more ideas, knowledge about a particular field, intelligent, different perspectives that could make the community better with better science are not included because of where they originate from.
After reading these sections it made me really think about how culture does have a huge impact on science because of the reach that it can have on certain people. An example of that to me is when a person who is interested in science doesn’t see other people like them in the same field as them they feel as though they might not fit in with the rest of the people. Also, the people who already have power and a lot of influence, use it to influence science in a way that would only be beneficial to them instead of it being beneficial to all people. Those people that didn’t go into science might have had a different way to do things that might further advanced science as a whole but it could never be known because they chose not to go into science.