Hey everyone! I’m loving all of your thoughtful responses to these sections. It’s great to see you take some time and sort of chew on these ideas about neutrality and objectivity. I’m sure plenty of professionals in your respective fields never do this deep dig, it’s provocative af! and forces us to really take into consideration how the work we do impacts the world around us (ick! feelings!)
I was planning on finishing up Science Under the Scope, but I think we can break it up between this week and next week just to really take our time. There’s no rush! we have nowhere to get to! Urgency is a trait of ableist white supremacy culture (bonus personal growth points if you have a moment to check out the link), it perpetuates the myth that we need to be productive to be valuable, that we need to be doing labor to have value. Fuck that noise.
We will take our time, let’s let this all marinate.
Segments eight, nine and ten of Science Under The Scope dive deeper into the real world impacts of uneven resource distribution and how that siphoning of resources by the overly resourced (usually white people) will intentionally minoritize other people and keep hold of power. Wang shows us this through breaking down “who benefits” from science industry funding. This is not the science we think about when we’re dissecting frogs (do the youth even still do that? I’m old and I still remember those little frog organs omg).
The example Wang gives is the difference between scientific research funding for cystic fibrosis (which predominantly affects white people) and sickle cell anemia (predominantly affects Black people).
How does this under representation happen? “The reason the answer to all of these questions is kind of the same – (middle class folks, white folks, folks with access to science ed, folks who see themselves represented in science, by science, as scientists) – is not by chance or some inherent factor of culture or biology. The reason is because our world’s histories of injustice, oppression, marginalization, and white supremacy have created this segmentation, this privilege.”
And so when we start to think about the intentional and systemic oppression of non-white people by white people and people who uphold white supremacist ideals, it becomes clearer how scientific research and data skews to favor a specific group.
For this week, please read eight, nine, and ten, and share two or three areas of research or technological development that might have bias towards people in power. Extra points if you can find something like this in your field (we’ll be doing writing project later this semester, you might want to use the content you find now).
Thanks everyone! Next module we’ll finish up Science Under the Scope. Have a great week!
I was learning in history class about the development of the railroad in the late 1800s. I learned how much the technological advancements that allowed railroad development benefitted the wealthy white business owners. The railroad expedited the transaction of goods from all over the country, strengthening the economy and the pockets of wealthy white men. The railroad allowed people to travel around the country faster, but people were not vacationing left and right. Instead, the primary use of the railroad was for commerce that directly helped rich people. In other words, technological advancements in transport will always be biased towards wealthy business people. It will allow for ease of travel on a small level for ordinary people, but it provides a drastic difference that increases profit for business people.
Technological advancements in weaponry also have a bias towards rich people and people in power. Ordinary people do not benefit from advancements in nuclear weaponry or guns except for increased security from outside dangers. On the other hand, manufacturers get a lot of money selling to those in power. The powerful can then use this as a deterrent or in actual war to advance their interests. Overall, ordinary people receive nothing compared to those in power.
In 6th grade, my science teacher taught a bit about CRISPR and advancements in gene editing technology. She told us that in the future, we’d be able to cure many life-threatening diseases or genetic defects and even alter our appearances. At the time, I thought the idea of being able to cut out parts of ourselves that we didn’t like was so cool, I never stopped to think about the implications of this technology. Now I’m older and wiser and I know that gene editing will only ever be accessible to those who can afford to throw away hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Advancements in this field of research will change many lives, but not nearly as many as they could, because pharmaceutical companies value profit over human lives. There’s also the conversation about eugenics and this technology bringing the power to eliminate traits that are seen as undesirable or inferior, and how the wealthy will no doubt take advantage of this power, but that’s a discussion for another time.
I also completely agree with Zakeriya’s point on how technological advancements in weaponry profit only a powerful handful of people, but I’d also like to add on that war doesn’t just not profit regular people, it harms them. I say “them” and not “us” because, as residents of the most powerful country in the world, we don’t ever have to worry about becoming civilian casualties. The same can’t be said for all the innocent civilians killed by drones provided by greedy defense contractors.
Currently, as mentioned in Science under the scope, a lot of the medical industry that researches on treatments for people with certain conditions that require them to be treated periodically tend to favor the rich and the companies that make them. Many of the prescriptions and treatments administered to clients are overpriced way above the normal price of production, making it near impossible for many low income families to pay for it, but they have to do it anyway to survive. This only benefits those producing the products and those who could afford it, such as the already rich.
Another area that benefits a certain group, could possibly space exploration, as it it doesn’t really benefit the public in the current time despite being important for science in general, but possibly benefits those that are already rich for researching in it, as they get rewarded for progress with funds and also can look and try to find things to monopolize in space research. There is already wide debate that there shouldn’t be such a large focus on space, and more put towards current world research or at least spread the research more evenly. I don’t specifically have an opinion on space research, but there is truth in fact that the general public / poor don’t really benefit from it.
In Part 7, it shares that scientific funding benefits white patients by an extreme margin compared to black patients. Specifically, funding was anywhere from 7.6 to 11.4 percent greater which is an alarming number and goes to show how scientific research and data skews to favor a specific group. Unfortunately, scientific research and data will always be bias towards a certain demographic because of our country’s history and the lower class will suffer as a result.
The medical sector selects certain treatments for patients with diseases that require them to be treated time and time after again because of the monetary value it brings to the table. That allows rich people to pay for it and for wealthy and healthy businesses to supply it. Many prescriptions and treatments given to patients are priced far above the average cost of production because they are in a win-win situation; they are the only ones producing, supplying, and selling it, forcing the customer to pay the required price for the product, making it nearly impossible for many low-income families to afford them. Nevertheless, they must use these medications and treatments to survive, so they will eventually have to pay for them. The only people who gain from this are those who produce the goods and those who can buy them, such as the already wealthy, thus limiting the market to the higher end.
Another example is space exploration; the wealthy are enthusiastic about exploring the enormous void known as space, but the poorer classes perceive it as a negative duty for society. They would rather spend billions of dollars building these ships and engineering them to function properly than utilize the money to repair roads, feed the homeless, and address other issues in impoverished places. Although spending billions of dollars may appear to be a terrible decision now, this is a long-term investment worth exploring.
Technological developments in robotics and artificial intelligence have a significant bias towards the people in power. Minority and marginalized community members are often the victims of the disproportional bias coded into robotics and algorithms. For example, the facial recognition AI created to facilitate legal procedures by the law enforcers is marred with inaccurate performance, especially against the black community members. On certain occasions, the system is reported to function accurately for white faces but reports poor information for black faces. This has caused many black community members to be illegally arrested and found innocent upon further investigation. Additionally, the use of AI has often guided the process of areas where law enforcers should patrol. The results have encouraged the over-policing of black community neighborhoods, encouraging the notion that such neighborhoods are unsafe. These advances are undoubtedly biased to favor the White members of society while depriving justice to the innocent Black community members.
Another area that reflects a bias towards the people in power is scientific medical research. Conventionally, medical research on health disparities among different populations looked into aspects such as people’s status, behavior, and circumstances. It could be that the explanation behind the results obtained from the research was that some patients failed to comply with the physician’s guidance, whereas others delayed seeking help. For the majority of Black members, medical research reported the health disparities to stem from their bodies and genetic composition. This understanding limited the amount of healthcare the population received as it ruled out factors such as social inequalities, differences in access to health coverage, severe health conditions resulting from racism, pollution, and working in unsafe work conditions that were common to the population. Thereby, most medical research paid attention to the health issues affecting the white members while under-researching those that affected the minority, particularly the Black members causing uneven healthcare outcomes.
This module was extremely interesting and I was hooked on part 10. I didn’t realize that only 19% of the donations that went towards finding the cure to cancer was actual research. It is supposed to be a non-profit organization but the founder had made himself a salary of $480,000? I also didn’t realize the information I gained on GMO’s and how it just fixing the harm they do themselves and its because of how the food is distributed that. Wang’s illustrations are a real eye opener and what made me understand what GMO’s were actually doing was the picture of a company in the shape of a happy face holding a bandage which represents the GMO’s while also holding a knife which was there to show the poor distribution. In science there is bias and in part 8 where she showed us how it works with the mine illustration and an example of how it works between the two diseases white vs marginalized communities I was shocked that one disease had 5 approved drugs while the other (I believe was sickle cell disease) had none as well as less funding.
I recently saw a video about a review of Elon Musk’s Tesla company, about the domestic robot Optimus that they planned to release next year, to be a robot that helps with household chores, and I have thought about this with everything I read in Science under the scope in this module, and I think this may be an example of bias because the robot Optimus, it thinks that it can be an affordable robot for the masses but of course, even if Elon tries to do this the price of $20,000, it is not something that everyone is going to want to pay for a robot for the home, with that money I could buy a second-hand car, and for a person with not so great economic resources it would be unthinkable to spend their money on this, for another part for people with high income, this can be an investment for a person with a higher income. For a low-income person this could be half their annual salary or even more, and for a person living outside the United States, let’s say a third-world country, this price could be what they earned in two years, so my conclusion would be that this would benefit more people with significant capital, since this robot could even replace many domestic workers, for a much lower price per year.
This could be connected to military robotic technology which, one hundred percent sure, is much more advanced than any robotic technology that is available to the masses because the military environment is very well cared for by our country, and all the resources that are spent on this They could be used for more important needs that a group of communities have. Some time ago I remember reading an article about how much money the United States government provided to public education compared to what it invested in military spending and it was impressive to see the difference in money between the two, I don’t remember the data, but it is The money invested in the military was many millions more than that invested in education.
I recently saw a video about a review of Elon Musk’s Tesla company, about the domestic robot Optimus that they planned to release next year, to be a robot that helps with household chores. I have thought about this with everything I read in Science under the scope of this module. I think this may be an example of bias because the robot Optimus, thinks that it can be an affordable robot for the masses. Still, of course, even if Elon tries to do this at the price of $20,000, it is not something that everyone is going to want to pay for a robot for the home, with that money I could buy a second-hand car. For a person with not-so-great economic resources, it would be unthinkable to spend their money on this, for another part for people with high income, this can be an investment for a person with higher income. For a low-income person this could be half their annual salary or even more, and for a person living outside the United States, let’s say a third-world country, this price could be what they earned in two years, so my conclusion would be that this would benefit more people with significant capital, since this robot could even replace many domestic workers, for a much lower price per year.
This could be connected to military robotic technology which, one hundred percent sure, is much more advanced than any automated technology that is available to the masses because the military environment is very well cared for by our country, and all the resources that are spent on this They could be used for more essential needs that a group of communities has. Some time ago I remember reading an article about how much money the United States government provided to public education compared to what it invested in military spending and it was impressive to see the difference in money between the two, I don’t remember the data, but it is The money invested in the military was many millions more than that invested in education.
Robots have been among the new deveolopment that has been on peoples minds. How will it effect the lives of the people. In my opinion robots is something that will only benefit the rich because robots in not something that a average person can afford. Also robots will take away lot of jobs from people. For example rich people wont hire a maid, why would they if they can invest in a robot. This will make poor people have less jobs to survive on and only rich will benefit from buying and selling robots. Another development would be investing in other counties fight. for example biden giving too much money to ukrane and people in us going through ressasion. This only benefits rich because the can make there product prices higher and then the poor suffer because they cannot effort it.