This paper argues against 'politicisation of science'. It's a seductive idea that science has been apolitical and things like decolonisation contaminate it, but it's wrong. Science has always been political - with significant impact on outcomes & culture. pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac…
Most importantly, science occurs within a context. The science that gets done is primarily decided by the richest countries in the world. They decide that (e.g.) diseases of ageing deserve more funding that tropical diseases. This changes the way science itself develops.
This also changes the way that technologies emerge from science, impacting on who benefits from fundamental science. We may think modern science is 'neutral' and meritocratic, but western politics sets the technological agenda, and the developing world is often disenfranchised.
These things can be more obvious to see, when you look back 150 years and see science primarily done by rich white aristocrats. We see colonial powers using science and technology for strategic advantage. We like to think things have changed - but on a global scale, have they?
And many of these political structures and histories have also led to exclusive hierarchies within science itself, that have frozen out women, ethnic minorities, disabled scientists and other minority groups. It is vital to understand and challenge this inbuilt politicisation.
This is, of course, not to say that science and technology don't massively benefit everybody - they do - they are a massive power and force for good. But neither are they apolitical. Science and technology is both inherently political, and a tool of the developed political state.
We need to educate our students about these things, so that they can interrogate more clearly the foundations on which science and technology are built. Understanding context allows our students to be freer thinkers, and to understand how they are being influenced.
Our increasigly diverse body of students also need to see scientists like them, using science to solve the problems that are important in their own personal contexts and communities. Not only is this motivating and inspiring to minorities, it helps better educate all students.
To suggest that decolonisation, or attempts to interrogate the history of science, are the 'politicisation' of science is wrong - indeed they aim to scrutinise and question the way in which science has been historically politicised.
For example, 30 years ago, there was little funding for clean energy research. Slowly politics changed (far too slowly given scientific evidence of climate change). Now this is well-funded and technologies are emerging. How much better if scientists had done it 20 years earlier?
For example, 30 years ago, there were almost no women in science leadership positions. We appreciate these things better than we did, and have worked to change the inbuilt political structures, and for women, things are starting to change.
However, even today, there are very few black scientific leaders. How can this change by any other means than by the assertion of our political will as scientists. If we keep all politics out of science, we simply freeze science the way it is now, with all of it's inequities.
The practice of science, and its conversion into technology is hugely political in many ways. It probably always has been and always will be. At the very least we need our students to understand that and to think honestly about that, and hopefully do better.
We need our students to understand their science first and foremost, but also appreciate ethics and a global context, as well as questioning hierarchies, assumptions and inbuilt political structures, so that science can become more inclusive and hopefully progress even better.
This article from our departmental magazine explains what we are doing at York in terms of reviewing the way in which we teach chemistry, and why.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2018, trans rights were broadly accepted - even Theresa May proposed legislation to treat trans people with dignity. In 5 years, Stock, Bindel, Rowling, et al, have created a toxic environment where trans people are demonised and fear for their safety. That's their legacy.
This Pride, all I read, is hateful & degrading rhetoric against trans people. Although gender critical people have the right to believe what they want about sex, that does not give them carte blanche to abuse trans people or discriminate against them in the provision of services.
I urge people to meet real trans and non-binary people, talk to them, understand them as individuals. Phobias feed on 'othering' people - once you count someone as a friend, phobias melt away. We are all human - this Pride can we try and see others as human.
Bempton Cliffs - Seabird City. England's best onshore seabird colony. Didn't get lucky with puffins today, they are mostly egg-sitting in their burrows, but the gannets and razorbills were great. @Bempton_Cliffs
29 scientists write about 'merit' in science and use this figure to 'measure' it. First, I should emphasise we all want great science. Also, merit is not opposed to diversity as the authors suggest - noone wants bad science. The problem is those axes... journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236
Who decides importance?
Is it scientists who go to conferences with buddies and set agendas?
Is it editors based on what gets cited?
Is it rich governments deciding national priorities?
Is it disadvantaged citizens in developing world?
All have different views and priorities.
When we get down to individual levels, and recognising scientists, should we consider resources used? Is it more meritorious to develop a new chemical reaction with a team of 60 and huge national funding, or a team of 2 and a little local support? Simple measures ignore context.
Trip to our favourite bluebell woods. North Cliffe Woods are just over 20 miles from York and gorgeous on a warm spring morning - walking through a haze of blue. @YorksWildlife
They were featured in the latest issue of @YorksWildlife magazine, so I don't feel so bad about sharing the 'secret' of where they are!
Followed by lunch 3 miles down the road at North Cave Wetlands from the excellent Butty Box - you can take your artisan coffees and fancy sandwiches, and once in a while swap them for a Bacon & Egg Roll and a good cup of tea (£5.70).
This is Mo. Mo was trafficked to the UK when he was 9 to work in modern slavery. In future, unaccompanied children like Mo, who arrive on boats, will simply be offered accommodation until they are 18, then sent back to their country of origin, or somewhere like Rwanda. #r4today
This is Dominic. Dominic's Jewish father escaped the Czech Republic as a 6-year-old when the Nazis annexed it in 1938. If Dominic's father had ended up on a boat, with the new laws, he would have been sent back to Prague in 1950, once he reached the age of 18 (or sent to Rwanda).
This is Rishi. His parents were economic migrants, coming to the UK to make a better life. In future, without a legal route, people like Rishi's parents who end up on boats would be sent back or deported to Rwanda, in spite of what they could offer with their skills & hard work.
There is real tension here. As educators, we design degrees to be good value for high fees. They require (especially in sciences) ca. 35 h/week in termtime to succeed. Yet because of the costs, our most disadvantaged students can't afford to fully engage. bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-…
I don't think the answer is to cut-back degrees to a 'part-time' undertaking. Instead, we should properly fund disadvantaged students so they can dedicate energies to study. If govt refuse, we must think seriously about making proper, top-quality, part-time degrees available.
However, do we really want to live in a country where the wealthiest can graduate a degree in 3-4 years, while the most disadvantaged need 6-8 years to get the same qualification? Higher education is a right for all, and should be equally accessible to all.