Scientific Americans

Science . . . is an imperfect science.

Scientists are people, after all.  People bring their biases to work.  In the work-place, personal biases affect hiring/firing, promotion, pay, what tasks are prioritized, to whom they are delegated, how productivity is assessed, which behavioral and interpersonal standards are applied, and job expectations.

In the lab and in the field, personal biases can have a profound effect on the outcome of scientific research.  At the March For Science last Saturday, I belatedly learned of the “Male Scientist Effect.”  Apparently – and demonstrably – lab mice have a qualitative reaction to the testosterone levels of male lab assistants and researchers.  How many definitive findings does this discovery call into question?  I cannot begin to conceive . . .

The social sciences are notorious for approaching research from a culturally-biased perspective.  One of my college professors told a well-documented tale of a small team of field researchers in Africa who made 1^st contact with an isolated village.  When the team asked to meet the village headman, they were brought to the hut of a woman.  Assuming they had been misunderstood, they reiterated their desire to speak with the leader, and kept at it until at last the villagers put them face-to-face with a man.  They proceeded to interview, observe, conclude, and publish an entire study on the village based on their research.  Years later, follow-up research revealed that the village “headman” was, in fact, the woman the previous team had declined to meet.  The social structure of the community before contact was inherently matrilineal and matrifocal.  Sadly, it had become less so over time; by insisting on interacting primarily with the men of the village, anthropologists and other visitors from the West had effectively undermined female authority and elevated male status and prerogative.

Gender and racial biases run rampant through the processes of scientific interpretation.  Archaeologists of the masculine persuasion erroneously pronounced the overwhelming statuary evidence of Mother Goddess religions during the Upper Paleolithic merely evidence of an insignificant cult.  The psychological benchmark for “normal” was long defined by Freud’s delineation of the well-balanced male mind.  Medicinal guidelines based on the study of one sex are often generalized and applied to both.

Scientists frequently get it wrong.  They promised X-rays couldn’t harm us.  They vastly underestimated the age of the human race, the planet, and the universe.  Even Einstein had his off days; the man was a huge proponent of the static universe theory.

Nor are scientists necessarily paragons of virtue.  Who championed the division of the human family into separate but unequal groups?  Who used “science” to “prove” the natural inferiority of entire races, ethnicities, and genders based on external physical characteristics and essential, gender-appropriate, biological functions?

Science is constantly playing catch-up with folk wisdom and instinct.  Scientific studies have tardily discovered that infants do better when they are held and fed breast milk, junk food is bad for you, racists are closed-minded, homelessness negatively impacts your health, and mothers do more housework than fathers.  One of my fave duh! studies was conducted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in 2015.  After rigorous scientific investigation the study concluded that more people would survive a tsunami if they picked up their pace when heading for higher ground.

Science tends to operate without a conscience.  Who gave #45 that button we’re all so worried he’ll press?  While social, health, and pure abstract sciences get scant funding or political support, the science of death and destruction is fully-subsidized and thriving.  Atomic, dirty, and nuclear bombs, chemical weapons (like Sarin and Agent Orange), gunpowder and its descendants (and most especially the automatic rifle), and pesticides (like DDT) – just a sampling of the most dangerous inventions the world has ever known – all come to us courtesy of practical scientific inquiry, experimentation, and invention.

To top it off, in this foully capitalist world, science must whore to score funding; ergo only certain hypotheses are tested, only certain lines of investigation are aggressively pursued, only certain products are developed, and only certain results see the light of day.  Toxic industries, such as tobacco and big oil, keep paid-for scientists on retainer and shell out mega-bucks for slanted studies.  When a case against one of their products reaches the courts or their next pipeline is in question, they trot out their experts and hand over carefully-constructed research to get off the hook.  They suppress the findings they paid for if those findings don’t support the corporation’s agenda (as when the auto industry’s own research connected the dots between vehicle emissions and climate change).  Worst case scenario, the corporate giants pay a fine that means nothing to them and does nothing to undo the damage they caused, and get on with the business of causing more.

But – and yes, there is a “but” – science polices itself.

The gender-mountain women must climb to study and work in the male-dominated sciences is formidable, but not insurmountable.  Scientifically-minded girls are adding “mountaineering” to their list of necessary skills, while some truly scientifically-minded boys are hacking away at the mountaintop and carving stairways in the cliffs.  Science abhors irrational prejudices.  As empirical evidence mounts, the pressure to discard assumptions and welcome all genders to the halls of science likewise increases.  While it’s impossible to completely eliminate personal biases from the labs, fields, schools, or research facilities, pure science and rational, objective thought stand on the side of gender equality.

Sooner or later, poor science is outed.  Whether its poverty is rooted in cultural bias, faulty methodology, statistical error, perceptual limitations, inadequate testing, or deliberately skewed results, poor science is inevitably outed by better science.  It’s called peer review.  Science by definition is a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world conducted through observation and experimentation.  The intention behind scientific endeavor is to answer questions with irrefutable, repeatable facts.   Like art and religion, science is the search for truth. Unlike art and religion, scientific truth is not a function of perspective or opinion, of self-expression or personal faith.  Scientific truth is a function of independently verifiable reality.

It was wonderful to see scientists take to the streets last Saturday . . . and a bit bizarre.  The streets are not a scientist’s usual haunts.  Like many an artist, scientists are likely to live and die in isolated bubbles of creative existence.  Politics, people, and pop culture can easily pass them by; their worlds may barely extend beyond a singular passion and focus.  No joke – when introverts, artists, and science nerds march world-wide in great numbers, it is absolutely an indication that things are super scary-bad.

The scientists have come in from their fields and out of their laboratories because their sites and labs are under attack.  #45 and his minions are censoring the federal scientific agencies and administrations.  They’ve deleted the word “science” from these organizations’ mission statements, removed data from their web-pages, and denied American citizens access to essential and completely unclassified information.  #45 is firing capable chiefs, administrators, and employees, and putting the sworn enemies of science and reason in charge of the very departments they have long labored to destroy.  The White House’s economic plan cuts funds to the National Institute of Health [NIH] by 18% ($25.9 billion).  It slashes 5.6% ($1.7 billion) from the Department of Energy [DOE], effectively eliminating “high-risk, high-reward” research.  It slams the DOE’s Office of Science by about 20% ($900 million), nixing high-energy physics, energy, climate change, and biology research.  The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is the hardest hit – funds down by 31% and 3,200 staff laid off – but it’s a moot point. There is legislation that eliminates the EPA entirely going through the House right now, and it’s a sure bet it will pass.

There hasn’t been a War on Science like this since medieval times, aka the Dark Ages.  “Dark” because the light of knowledge was extinguished and minds were enslaved in dark ignorance.  I know society isn’t fond of taking lessons from history, but nevertheless I will persist in pointing out a few salient parallels.

Then, as now, the destruction and suppression of scientific inquiry was led by Christian fanatics.  Then, as now, only the sciences that abetted war and exploitation were allowed.  Then, books and learning were suspect, but making stronger swords, heftier bows, sea-worthier vessels was encouraged.  Now, there will be no shortage of funds for developing new fracking technologies, more powerful bombs, basically any R&D that puts more coins in the coffers of the obscenely wealthy.  R&D that could give Mother Earth, her flora, her fauna, and us humans even a snowball’s chance in hell of surviving the changes to come?  If we want that kind of science, we’re going to have to fight for it.