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!
Most people whose perspective are left out are the ones who got stuck in structural barriers. People tend to leave other people out if their perspective doesn’t benefit themselves, or if they believe that they are superior because they are more advanced at the time.
People who accomplishes more tends to be the ones who are at the top of the hierarchy. More people will be looking at them and leaves the marginalized group.
Structural barriers such as economic status, race, gender, and the inability to access opportunities and resources can often dawn upon our scientific accomplishments. One of the trending problems currently is the racial bias in technology, something as small as a design flaw within a soap dispenser, can show that many technology-based companies lack diversity. I believe that the diversity problem is an easy fix, but if the world keeps its pace on technology as it is now, those under structural barriers can be “left behind” within the technology world and could possibly turn those people under the barriers away.
I personally believe that the saying, “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” can be applied to structural barriers in science. Not necessarily because of money, but because the people at the top of the scientific field will most likely remain at the top and they get a big say in what goes on in the scientific world. This can impact accomplishments that have not been published or not gotten enough publicity and therefore impacting the world. The fact that we know a part of this may be true can also hurt the credibility of the some of the accomplishments that are already out there.
People who don’t or aren’t able to go through science because of structural barriers such as minorities,women, and poor people often have to deal with prestigious and struggle to reach the same place as the already powerful and affluent groups. Due to the fact that people from these groups or more haven’t been given the same opportunity compared to the majority means we have lost many potential scientific breakthroughs and insights which could only be gained from being growing up and having better understanding of their own communities. The world as a whole is hurt from the loss of many potential scientists,engineers, and other fields in the sciences as the field of science has failed to diversify at a fast enough rate.
The people didn’t went to into science because one of these structural barriers were Racism, Sexism, Ableism, and Classism were people could have a chances to be one of the highest sciences people could be but the world have a different plan for them were they have been judge by how they look like and the skin color. The impact does that have on how we currently perceive scientific accomplishment is how we can save the world from virus or any kind of disease. How we can create new technology to help this world were you can’t be judge any kind of classes.
The people who mostly don’t go into science are people who are financially unstable. These people may be scientifically intelligent as some of the other people in the field but because of their situation, they aren’t given an opportunity to show their intelligence. This impacts how we look at scientific accomplishments because now there is only a limited number of people who are involved in scientific research which can result in biases. This would then lead to an inaccurate representation of the science around us.
The saying “science is probably not neutral” definitely has meaning behind it. Within the field of science, whites dominate as opposed to other races, mainly in part because of their access to resources and a higher education. This lack of resources has shown to result in a lot fewer opportunities for advancement in science for certain people as one race dominates. With these structural barriers comes one-sided praise. What I mean by that is that there could have been someone who discovered the cure for cancer years ago, but due to these barriers, the discovery never went mainstream or is barely recognized. as opposed to a Harvard student discovering the cure for cancer, which would get nationwide coverage and praise. Scientific achievement tends to be acknowledged and beneficial to those who have a higher status in society, while there are many out there who are far more likely to accomplish more in this field but don’t have the same access needed to further their skills.
The ones who don’t go into science due to structural barriers such as gender and race limits our scientific achievements. With only specific people getting into the field, science will be less objective. Even though science can not be truly objective, diversity is the only way we can make it less objective. We also lose a lot of potential scientists who can make a breakthrough if given the chance.