,
30 tweets,
10 min read
Read on Twitter
Well. I certainly have a lot of thoughts on this. I'll call this thread Being Wrong In Science. 1/×
Might be long.
Probably, definitely long.
Might be long.
Probably, definitely long.
.@DrJenGunter @phylogenomics @jameshamblin and more have already gotten PNAS to take down the sexualized imagery, so thank you to everyone who called this out. But this study itself, and the conclusions it draws, didn't show up out of the blue. 1/x
@DrJenGunter @phylogenomics @jameshamblin I'm struggling a little with where to start. In my last thread, some very earnest commenters wanted me to address the is/ought fallacy, so let's begin there. First, for clarity: simply because something is, does not mean it should be.
But when we as scientists choose to ask “what is” we impose our own biases on to the types of information we consider important. We make a decision about which aspects of the world we want to explore. 4/x
One example: our genetic databases are built off of the genetics of white Europeans, leading to a poverty of genetic information around people of color - and therefore a poverty of diagnosis and treatment for those populations. nature.com/articles/d4158…
The data collected does not represent certain groups, therefore the conclusions drawn from that data does not serve certain groups. It is not a malicious exclusion (I hope) but a careless one. It can be fixed by intentionally questioning the processes we use to gather data 6/x
The truth is, much of the way we apply biological knowledge is born out of legacy systems that are themselves blind to the racism and sexism baked into their fundamental assumptions. When we ask what 'is' without interrogating this framework, we can do actual harm.
The example I gave leads to worse health outcomes for people of color. This is not okay. It is a systemic injustice that perpetrates harm on the excluded. This harm occurs even before we address a culture that minimizes the suffering of POC nytimes.com/interactive/20…
If we do not pause to examine the framework for what "is" our science can end up passively supporting racist and sexist systems. Even worse, our work can actively perpetuate the bias. We may generate flawed hypotheses that end up supporting explicitly racist/sexist ideologies.
The hypothesis you investigate is a lens, a statement about how the world works and how to interrogate it. Your job, as a scientist, is to work as hard as possible to disprove your hypothesis. 10/x
Science chips away at the falsehoods we surround ourselves with, asking over and over again “Is this false?” This is why Einstein’s theory of relativity is so powerful. It is falsifiable. There are measurable ways in which it can be wrong. 11/x
This paper suggests that low rates of female orgasm during intercourse are the result of evolutionary decoupling of ovulation from copulation. Can you, any of you, name another reason why a human woman may not achieve orgasm during intercourse? 12/x
Think about the worldview being interrogated here. Think about what is assumed by the premise: That a low rate of female orgasm during intercourse is embedded in our biology. What is a gal to do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13/x
A falsifiable experiment would test this premise. Does the rate of orgasm change when women change partners? Change position? Learn more about their own sexuality? The authors of this paper gave antidepressants to rabbits. They did not do the work to challenge their conclusion.
Science asks questions that can be answered in the negative - and re-thinks its narratives when that happens. Papers like this (& fields like evopsych) exploit science to bolster their existing narrative. It is disappointing to say the least. 15/x
I want more rigor. When evopsych examines the ‘objective’ attractiveness of endometriosis subjects, I want a discussion of how their very premise may be undermined by the sexist constructions of female beauty that contribute to their ‘objective’ understanding of that measure.
When scientists asks questions about intelligence, I want a discussion of how their premise may be undermined by the fact that IQ was perverted by a eugenicist from developmental assessment to deterministic arbiter. (2004 article but a good discussion) theguardian.com/education/2004…
I want to see explicit rationales as to why biological measurement is the best way to disprove their hypothesis about complex behavior, and I desperately want a nuanced discussion as to why these results add to a constructive discourse. 19/x
Sometimes, the premise of a paper is flawed. Sometimes, the premise of entire fields is flawed. Alchemy is an enduring example. Phrenology is another one. I believe evopsych will reveal itself to be a similar house of cards. 20/x
We talk a lot about how theories are refined in science, but often this process is presented as a seamless transition from one idea to another rather than the messy contentious process of opposing existing concepts - and the people who champion them. 21/x
Science, like art, is a human activity that takes place in context and culture. An appeal to the idea of "natural order" always seems to end up rationalizing existing power structures. @AngelaDSaini discusses this in depth in her books "Inferior" & "Superior" 22/x
@AngelaDSaini The idea of a 'natural order' may be comforting, but it is entirely wrong. It stems from Linnaeus, who read the will of God in the natural world. He's only the beginning of the ways our understanding of biology has been dramatically, fundamentally wrong throughout the years 23/x
@AngelaDSaini He was pretty hilariously wrong though: Linnaeus categorized plants and animals via sexual morphology. Then went ahead and expanded this theory to... rocks. The architect of our understanding of order in the living world also thought rocks had sex. books.google.com/books?id=YIDtC…
@AngelaDSaini Darwin gave us the thinking behind the origin of life! And also advocated for gemmules, hereditary units that radiated out in all directions. This is, of course, not how it works. wired.com/2014/12/fantas…
@AngelaDSaini Whenever we start to think of life as simple, it reveals itself to be otherwise. Barbara McClintock discovered that DNA could excise itself and ‘jump’ to a new section of the genome. This work was met with “puzzlement and hostility.” salon.com/2018/05/20/mee…
@AngelaDSaini We used to think that the DNA in our genome that did not directly encode a specific protein, was junk - inert, useless matter. False (This article is from 2018. We’re still finding ways this particular idea is wrong) sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/… 27/x
@AngelaDSaini Carl Woese sought a better way to categorize the world of microbes, and threw the field into disarray because his process effectively discovered a new kingdom of life. He was called a “crazy crackpot” - but he was right. 28/x wired.com/2013/01/carl-w…
@AngelaDSaini Last example - Lynn Margulis proposed that once, a very long time ago, one cell encapsulated another cell. Her work was rejected 15 times before becoming the basis of understanding for systems like plant cells and their chloroplasts nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sci…
@AngelaDSaini I know I've wandered a bit afield here, but I think it's absolutely critical that we recognize where and how our understanding has been wrong in the past and why if we want to understand the questions biology can and cannot answer for us. 30/x
@AngelaDSaini This paper did not appear on its own. It comes from a mindset that reduces complex human experiences to biological imperatives. It's born out of a field that has not reconciled with the way it has invoked divine order and justify what is as what ought to be. We can do better 31//
