Scientists should be more political, not less – does Watt agree?

From the Daily Skeptic

Author: Noah Carr

scienceNominally the world's most prestigious scientific journal, it's at it again. In November, they published an editorial by Agustin Fuentes titled “Scientists as Political Advocates.” The point is that scientists and scientific research institutions need to be equal more Politically it was more important than it is now.

As early as 2023, Fuentes wrote an editorial claiming that “waking up is contributing to the scientific cause of the 21st century.” In 2021, he wrote an article describing Charles Darwin as “an Englishman with harmful and unfounded prejudices.” In fact, the prolific Fuentes wrote at least eight editorials for the New York Times. science over the past four years—a sign that editors like what he's selling.

Returning to “Scientists as Political Advocates,” Fuentes begins by warning readers that science is “under attack.” Does he mean that it is under attack from woke ideologues who seek to turn science into a tool for promoting “diversity”? Or is it under attack from public health officials seeking to shut down discussion about the harms of pandemic policies? Of course not. he means it's under attack his Political opponents.

Nearly all of the examples Fuentes gives involve accusations of attacks on science by some person or group on the political right. He's not worried about attempts to redefine basic biological concepts like sex, or about scientists being the target of scathing petitions against wearing masks. This is not to say that Fuentes's example is not an attack – it is just that his expression is obviously one-sided and tendentious.

In the next paragraph, Fuentes manages to conclude that “science in many societies is political and always has been”, quoting the American Association for the Advancement of Science's recent statement on the “responsibility of science.” science. I don't believe it. Of course, scientists should act responsibly just like everyone else. But this does not mean that science as an institution is or should be political.

People like me who oppose the politicization of science are not saying that scientists should be free to act irresponsibly, or that they, as ordinary citizens, should be indifferent to “human interests” (Fuentes' words). We are saying that science itself should be kept separate from politics, as set out in Merton's four norms:

1. Scientists must be judged according to objective criteria. (Employees cannot be fired for “racism.”)
2. They must share data and results with each other. (Does not block access to the dataset.)
3. They must seek to advance knowledge rather than pursue personal or political goals. (People are not required to promote “diversity.”)
4. They must maintain distance from the subject of their research. (No feel-good dogmas are preached.)

In the next paragraph, Fuentes reiterates his woke credentials, complaining that “attacks are often particularly intense when scientists are also women, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color), queer, or from other marginalized groups.” What he basically means is that attacks on white male scientists are At least Strongly, this is more or less contrary to the truth. Attacks on white male scientists are often most Precisely because these people rank lowest in the Awakened's hierarchy of victims. Have any black female scientists been the subject of a scathing petition signed by hundreds of colleagues?

Fuentes went on to criticize “the idea that scientists must remain neutral,” which he claimed was “morally problematic and actually harmful” in the face of “anti-science attacks.” He seems to believe that the only reason people don't support his political agenda is that too many scientists keep a low profile because of their obsession with neutrality. But scientists in many fields no Stay silent: They are engaging in exactly the kind of activism Fuentes wants. In doing so, they are contributing to a loss of public trust in science.

Fuentes’s call for greater politicization of science is somewhat unconvincing. Traditional scientific values ​​such as neutrality and impartiality are worth upholding.

Relevant