On Lawrence Krauss' assertion that science is not systematically racist - a thread
1/n
1/n
1st: let us put aside the multiple serious accusations of sexual harassment and subsequent retirement from ASU, and being the beneficiary of $100,000s and subsequent grotesque defence of Jeffrey Epstein, and that Quillette is a terrible, silly publication worthy of ignoring 2/n
I won't to pick apart this whole article, cos it’s mostly waffly rhetoric at which Krauss is a master, and anecdote bordering on the ‘some of best friends are Black’ fallacy. But a couple of points. Warning, this is quite long. 3/n
This: this is an odd point to make because the implication seems to be ‘the problem is not in academic science, but in society, ergo we should not act upon it’ 4/n 
Now, I don’t have any data to hand on race, and perhaps one of you does, but a similar case could be made about the dwindling lack of representation of women in the sciences as careers progress. 5/n
We know, for e.g., that in 2014, the @RoyalSociety’s UR-Fellowship, which was specifically designed with mid-career women in mind, that with only 20% of applicants being women, at every stage of the selection process, the proportion dropped further, ending at 4%. 6/n
Why this occurred is not fully understood, but that attrition above base level indicates a structural problem, not outside of science, but within it. (n = 1 anecdotal evidence admittedly, but so is 100% of Krauss’ article). 7/n
BTW, it was 14/43 in 2019, compared to 4/44 in the year I am referring to, 2014, so progress there 8/n bbc.in/31HSXDL
I don’t like this para at all. Because it excuses individual action. Assistant professors of all disciplines can confront racial inequality in society, because they are part of society. 9/n
Scientists are not exempt from society, we are part of it. We can do the best science we can AND make efforts to fix social inequalities that hamper good research. Nobody wins unless everybody wins. 10/n
Remember: When all you've ever known is privilege, equality feels like oppression. This is so screamingly the unwitting theme of Krauss' beliefs.
11/n
(I said that, though didn’t invent the phrase, buy my book bit.ly/33rzPrG)
11/n
(I said that, though didn’t invent the phrase, buy my book bit.ly/33rzPrG)
On the nature of science, and its roots. 12/n
I don't see anyone wanting to tear it all down. Instead I see an increasing obligation to understand our history. 13/n
Y’see, the ‘Scientific Revolution’ – like ‘The Enlightenment' - is a problematic post hoc term – and is in many ways inseparable from the Age of Empire, European expansion, colonialism - an age of Plunder and exploitation. 14/n
Perhaps this is less visible in the high-end cosmology on which Krauss is an expert, but in my field, for e.g., the legacy of the systemic, endemic, structural racism on which anthropology and subsequently genetics was built is very present today. 15/n
We continue to use the works of ardent racists such as Linnaeus in our everyday work, which is not to say that it is wrong or useless, but it permeates our continued explorations of for e.g. human genetics. 16/n
Language used to describe population structures is not only derived from racialised categories, such as ‘Caucasian’ or ‘Black’, but is maintained socially in science despite being scientifically un-useful or even invalid. 17/n
[Also, point of fact: the pyramids weren’t built by slaves, but by paid workers, which could be ascertained by googling this frequent specious assertion. 18/n]
Anyway: this is part of the spectrum of beliefs, assertions and arguments that science is apolitical, morally impartial, the data is neutral, the stupidest expression of which is ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’. 19/n
Maybe again that is more true in astrophysics, but in biology and notably genomics it is not. 20/n
[almost there - I have to walk the dog soon]
[almost there - I have to walk the dog soon]
We base huge sweeping conclusions about humankind based on samples that for complex historical and contemporary reasons are not representative of humankind, but of white people. 20/n
Even in the current clusterfuck shitestorm of #covid19, this disease has been racialised. The real disparities of infection/death on non-white people in the west are far better explained by well understood socioeconomic factors than molecular biological 22/n
(though genetics will play a part; medicine is deeply racialised anyway, *because* of socioeconomic factors, aside from anything genetic). 23/n
So: it’s all very well saying science is not racist per se, but it is a foolish thing to suggest that science can exist without scientists. 24/n
We do stand on the shoulders of giants, but we also stand on the shoulders of racists, whether we know it or not, and their influence remains part of scientific culture.
25/25
25/25
Now this guy
BTW, follow @ewanbirney and @aylwyn_scally for the most thoughtful comment on human genomics, population structure and terminology. They are the best.
