• Dr Cog@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I understand the historical context but many of us scientists strive to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Nearly every grant I apply to has a secondary version that prioritizes racially and ethnically diverse applicants. Half of articles I see published are now acknowledging the racial divide in science and striving to recruit more minority populations.

    I’m applying to a federal grant now (K01) and I am required to state my strategy for ensuring representation of gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in my recruitment population. I have a section of my grant discussing how the presentation of Alzheimers differs in black communities.

    We definitely have more work to do, but it’s not like we’re pretending the racial divide doesn’t exist.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nearly every grant I apply to has a secondary version that prioritizes racially and ethnically diverse applicants

      That’s diversity at best and tokenism at worst and has no impact on what science has inherited. Black people working on chemical warfare doesn’t make it less structurally racist.

      Half of articles I see published are now acknowledging the racial divide in science and striving to recruit more minority populations.

      Doesn’t reduce the billions of dollars current institutions have extracted by consuming black and brown bodies.

      We definitely have more work to do, but it’s not like we’re pretending the racial divide doesn’t exist.

      It’s not a racial divide. It’s a racist structure. We ARE pretending like racism doesn’t exist in the way that it does but instead exists as not enough representation. Racism isn’t a lack of representation. It’s much much much bigger than that, and fixing it doesn’t require more representation to happen first.

      • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Intentional racism is no longer an issue due to nearly every (reputable) publication’s requirement of a institutional review board. This is to prevent exactly what you describe.

        Unintentional racism, yes I agree that’s a problem.

        But come on. We’ve made huge strides in this over the past few decades.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Intentional racism is no longer an issue due to nearly every (reputable) publication’s requirement of a institutional review board. This is to prevent exactly what you describe.

          This is LAUGHABLE

          Unintentional racism, yes I agree that’s a problem.

          You really gotta study what’s been written about racism. It’s not what you think it is, apparently.

          But come on. We’ve made huge strides in this over the past few decades.

          Nah, we really haven’t. Representation is better. White supremacy is still killing millions.

          • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So your response is “no, u?”

            I’m happy to have this conversation but you really need to contribute more. I’ve described numerous ways we currently combat racism in science. Would you like to provide a recent example of racist science that we can discuss?

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve described numerous ways we currently combat racism in science.

              No you didn’t. You described how we currently combat bigotry in the academy and somewhat in sampling for research. If you think the 1800s isn’t recent enough, then you’ve got a real problem. Imperialism and racism weren’t built in a couple of decades, they’re not going to be dismantled by asking people to identify as a goddamned racialized group. Every single time someone does a report on crime and breaks down data by race you’re seeing racist social science in action. The way we do clinical trials. Decisions about what to study, like the impacts of lead, or education, or pharmaceuticals, all of it lies on top of and interpermeates racist superstructure. Recent? Forced hysterectomies. Public statements from researchers that genetics are not politically correct. Mauna Kea. Environmental impact studies in Guam. I mean, it’s never ending.

              • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Every single time someone does a report on crime and breaks down data by race you’re seeing racist social science in action

                Maybe I’m misinterpreting but… is your solution to ignore race and pretend it doesn’t exist? That we should be ignorant of how different groups are being treated and pretend everyone is the same? I think we both agree that minorities in many countries are more likely to be poor and have lower social mobility, and so it’s important to study them. As an example from my field: Alzheimer’s is significantly more likely if you’re a minority, especially black or hispanic, due to their reduced ability to access healthy food (food deserts) and quality healthcare due to past redlining. The only way we know this is by studying it.

                Forced hysterectomies

                That’s not science, that’s horrible treatment of minority groups and medical malpractice. No scientist with any degree of repute supports that shit.

                I’m unfamiliar with the others: genetics being politically correct (this statement makes no sense to me), Mauna Kea, or Guam.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Mauna Kea is a sacred mountain in Hawaii that is colonized by astronomers and the proposed site of the very large 30M telescope. Indigenous Hawaiians who are illegally occupied are resisting it. Scientists are saying that they’re being anti-science.

                  In Guam, environmental impact studies are used to justify the continued destruction of habit because the study doesn’t reveal sufficient impact. This is because the definition of impact is politically motivated and informed by white supremacy.

                  I will try to find right-wing geneticists who go out and try to justify racism with genetics. It happens all the time. Richard Dawkins was someone who attempted to use science and neo-atheism to justify bombing brown people.

                  Forced hysterectomies come from the academy. They aren’t merely just bad behavior, they are the legacy of eugenics and white supremacist social policies informed and crafted by the academy. You can’t just stay science doesn’t do anything wrong - that’s a “no true Scotsman”.

                  Just because you aren’t informed of the prevailing critique of science as a continuous tool of oppression doesn’t mean it’s not. It just means you likely have a vested interest in not believing it. If you’re not making oodles of profit from science, then your vested interest is likely your self-concept.

                  • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Thanks for the information. Each of these are indeed troubling. But I think it’s disingenuous to say “science” is at fault for these. Shitty people doing shitty things for their own shitty reasons seems to be at play. Some of those reasons are for scientific funding or clout, but I think I comfortably speak for a lot of scientists when I say the scientific output is not worth it.

                    I think we’re mainly on the same page with a lot of this, we just have different descriptions of who we think the bad guy is. My view is that humans have the capacity for great evil, especially when motivated by profit or fame, but that science itself isn’t the root cause of this evil but is instead a catalyst enabling people to become famous as a result of it. It’s the fame, in my opinion, that drives people to do these terrible things. Science itself doesn’t really benefit, and is arguably hurt, by these actions, since there are likely other less harmful ways to research these topics.

                    Of course, I am biased. I have a career in science, after all. But I do genuinely believe that science does not require these terrible actions to thrive.