Hey everyone!
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments on the first module. It seems like 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!
One mathematician who I am familiar with didn’t necessarily not go into math, but he ended up dying young without finishing most of his work. The mathematician goes by the name of Srinivasa Ramanujan. During the 1900s, he would show his theorems to various mathematicians at Trinity university. Many mathematicians didn’t acknowledge his theorem because there was no proof of it at the time. However, nearly 80s years later, it was found that Ramanujan’s theorems can bring us closer to explaining the mystery of black holes. I think his story relates to historical locatednness because at the time, the English mathematicians would solve math there own ways. Furthermore, I believe his story has to do with cultural locatedness. Ramanujan was an Indian and while he couldn’t provide proof of his theorems, he was still confident in them because he believed “God” gave him such ideas, however, the English mathematicians weren’t as devoted and required proof of work.
Many people did not pursue careers in science due to factors such as racism, sexism, ableism, and classism. All of these causes might be connected to a country’s or society’s perspective on it. During the early twentieth century, brown people in the United States were unable to pursue careers in science due to the general number of white scientists and the lack of colored scientists; they were also unable to pursue careers due to financial constraints. They couldn’t enter the profession without a required minimum degree of education, confining them to low-level, low-wage positions. People also do not enter science because of their perspective on a particular issue; for example, climate change may be seen differently by foreigners than by certain Americans. The majority of Americans still perceive this as a sham effort, similar to the flat earth or to evolution, while the rest of the world sees it as a huge problem or a true fact that has worsened because of overpopulation and other contributing factors. However, in the early twenty-first century, people from all countries may go to various countries and obtain high-quality education if they so choose, breaking down the color barrier and generalizing the notion of a diverse group of people joining the shift in science.
Nowadays, people’s perceptions of scientific achievements are viewed with skepticism. Nobody appears to believe scientists and the information they provide to the public in an objective manner. When it comes to science, people appear to mix fact with opinion. People assume that investing billions of dollars in scientific initiatives is a waste of money in the short term, but they fail to take into account the long-term benefits of social development. However, when scientific achievements are displayed to the public, the bulk of the public is unconcerned about minor advancements in the present subject. That is due to either an underestimation of its importance or the fact that it is not a significant improvement towards their way of life.
Many people probably didn’t go into science because of structural barriers that exist now or had existed in the past. In the past, due to racism and sexism, there was inequality in the education that people received and the chances and opportunities they were given, or opportunities that didn’t exist. Furthermore, even now we can see the effects of the past that take root onto the present, as those groups that had lost opportunities in the past tend to be less financially well-off and are unable to pursue these degrees in science at a higher level compared to those who didn’t face such issues, or already established. In addition, since there is also already less representation for many of these groups before, they don’t have as much ground to stand on currently, and are only just finding representation in the community of science in recent times.
I am not sure exactly how it has an impact on how we currently perceive scientific accomplishments. I guess maybe in some cases, some groups of people would rather see science be used to help people in their communities that lack something or have an issue rather than seeing progress in other areas such as space exploration. Another way could be how people judge science based on the group of people that present it, mainly based on political reasons or because they don’t trust it unless it was researched by someone they trusted. Besides those examples, I am not sure how else it exactly affects the way we perceive scientific accomplishments, but that’s what I can think of or recall from what people say or do publicly and online in recent years.
As shown in Part 6, groups with military, social or economic power can make claims that will be accepted immediately because of their influence and level of power they hold. This affects how we should view scientific accomplishments and findings because instead of accepting a specific conclusion about something, we can continuously research and expand upon the ideas that were found. There are many examples in history where people don’t pursue science because of structural barriers and there are also people that aren’t truly credited for their work. An example of this is Katherine Johnson (1918-2020), a female mathematician who confirmed the trajectory analysis that took Alan Shepard, the first American to travel into space. She was not recognized for her accomplishment until 2015 which goes to show how there are many barriers that exist in the world.
There were lots of different groups of people who did not get into any type of science because of structural barriers. This was mainly because of all the racism, sexism, ableism, and classism that were present in different parts of the world. There were times in history when people of color for example were not given the chance to pursue science even if they had great ideas or were well qualified. One major problem with this is that those people could have made incredible discoveries but were not given the opportunity to do so. This impacts how we currently perceive scientific accomplishments because we may think that scientific studies in the past only looked at data from a certain group of people as opposed to everyone. This makes us think that not all science from the past is 100 percent accurate since it left out a lot of people.
Unfortunately, we still live in a time with people who do not go into science because of structural barriers. However, the structural barriers today are a lot more covert. Due to a widespread focus on the oppression of marginalized youths in STEM fields, employers and other people in power are forced to build barriers more covertly. For example, accepting applications based on names that sound more white or masculine and then stating this person is more qualified for the job. Although society has done a good job in battling structural barriers, it is hard to correct those insistent on using their position to continue oppression. This very oppression has likely happened to me too. When I applied to college, it is very possible a school denied me based on my name but masked it as a lack of necessary criteria.
Because of the continued oppression, whenever I think of an accomplished scientist, I only think of white men. The only female scientist I can think of is Marie Curie. This lack of knowledge is very dangerous because it influences me to believe that only white men are capable of scientific accomplishments. And this perception reinforces the oppression and structural barriers that allow white men to thrive more easily. And then the cycle continues. It is important to break this cycle by breaking the lack of knowledge and the structural barriers themselves.
Walls need to be set up in order to keep science neutral. Neutral science does not make me feel uncomfortable because it is correct science. By keeping social structures out of experimentation you are guaranteed better results (unless it is a social experiment). For example 1 + 1 will always equal 2. Racism, Classism, Sexism, etc will not change the fact that 1 + 1 = 2. It’s irrefutable and simple so there’s no doubt anyone can disprove it. By keeping science simple the accuracy stays at an all time high where as feelings will drop the accuracy to fit social standards and will most likely be falsified.
For most issues, there is always multiple solutions to benefit all parties if possible (if not most parties) and then its up to the census to pick the most beneficial solution for the group as a whole. If the choice was made for the greater good of everyone’s well being, then it would be different and therefore relatively unbiased. Usually within history, the group with the most power makes that decision, regardless to if it benefits other parties or not. Within this same logic, when it comes to scientific inquiries, the choices of the ones who holds power hold more weight and is highly favored. A lot of great ideas and greater minds with less power, status or influence are not heard due to this simple fact.
Many people in the early 1900 could not get into science because of sexism and racism. In the early 1900 women and people of color did not have the opportunities to learn about science as much as white men did. There have been people of color or women who could have contributed greatly to science but because of these structural barriers, they couldn’t. Maybe if we didn’t have these barriers science that we know of today might have been different. We might have discovered more. We all are gifted with something in life and some people are gifted with talent. Albert einstein is a great example of people who are gifted and. if we did not have these barriers we could’ve had more people like him.
I remember that when I still lived in Ecuador I remember that the careers related to the scientific field, for example doctors, biologists, scientists in general, were seen with a higher social status than others and it was always said that the ideas of pursuing a career in the scientific field was expensive and that it took much more time and effort than other careers, which I would not say is entirely true because for every career you have to make an effort and it takes more or less the same time for each one depending on how much you want to advance in your education. But this brings me to the idea that because they had that concept of pursuing a scientific career, these are ideas of marginalization because anyone today could pursue a scientific career but many times they do not do so due to the social stigma that they already have established in your brain either because of racism, classism, sexism or ableism. An example that just came to my mind is the number of doctors and doctorates that there now and before, a woman did not from the beginning think of being a doctor but a nurse, while a man would directly think of being a doctor, but this is an example of sexism and it should not be like that for any reason, I do not currently know someone who thinks like this, but if I knew him I would convince him to aspire to the highest he can reach, the sky is the limit. To all this the problem that it causes is that people do not trust science so much, and see it with Skepticism, believing in false wrong things that science has not proven or also mixing opinions with facts. Causing in turn fewer people to believe in science as a way of progress and invest fewer resources in it, or limiting popular opinions.
Over the years, the field of Science appears to be male-dominated, an aspect that limited the involvement of women in the development of the field. The male domination issue in Science can be assessed from two lenses; first, up to the 20th Century, and second, in the 21st Century. Women were overlooked by society up to the 20th Century because of the perspectives that shaped the role and limits of a woman in society. Most women were underrepresented in major aspects, which significantly impacted their education and contribution to the scientific realm. The consequences were adverse for the Black women because the society was racially segregated. As a result, most women researchers were unable to go into Science, and the few that did were unrecognized for their work. The men took credit for the contributions made in Science by women, making the majority of female researchers unknown to the world up to date. And black women were forced to fight the stereotypes and adversity set upon them by the male-dominated white society to achieve proper recognition for their works. They took a longer period to publish their scientific work compared to female and white researchers. On the other hand, the involvement of women in Science has significantly changed in the 21st Century. More female researchers have ventured into the field as the field seizes to be a gender-inclined career. Even so, the field remains male-dominated, mainly because male scientists are paid more than their female counterparts. The challenge in this is that it discourages the involvement of women in the field, causing shorter careers and reduced growth and progression for the population. This way, fewer scientific works by women are published despite an equal expertise level by their male counterparts.
As years went by the field of science has changed drastically. Many structural barriers that exist impacted many to not be in the science field. Men were the ones who worked the majority of the time whereas women stayed home and did house chores back then. This affects how we perceive scientific accomplishments because men seem to be more memorable compared to women scientists.