in defense of merit in science
10 - 05/23 /11:18
In the 1930s the USSR enforced the untenable theories of Trofim Lysenko, a charlatan Russian agronomist who rejected the existence of genetic inheritance. Scientists who disagreed with Lysenko’s claims were fired, some sent to the gulag.
Implementation of Lysenko’s theories in Soviet and Chinese agriculture led to famines and the starvation of millions. Russian biology still hasn’t recovered.
~~ Adapted from an article by Jerry Coyne and Anna Krylov ~~
A wholesale and unhealthy incursion of ideology into science is occurring today in the West. We see it in progressives’ claim that scientific truths are malleable and subjective, similar to Lysenko’s insistence that genetics had no place in progressive Soviet agriculture.
Implementation of Lysenko’s theories in Soviet and Chinese agriculture led to famines and the starvation of millions. Russian biology still hasn’t recovered.
~~ Adapted from an article by Jerry Coyne and Anna Krylov ~~
A wholesale and unhealthy incursion of ideology into science is occurring today in the West. We see it in progressives’ claim that scientific truths are malleable and subjective, similar to Lysenko’s insistence that genetics had no place in progressive Soviet agriculture.
We see it when scientific truths—say, the binary nature of sex—are either denied or distorted.
We see it in activists’ calls to “de-colonize” scientific fields; to adopt indigenous “ways of knowing.” Different cultures have different ways of interpreting natural processes—variations to be valued as an important aspects of sociology and anthropology. But these “ways of knowing” are not coequal to modern science. It is foolish to pretend otherwise.
In some ways this new species of Lysenkoism is more pernicious than the Soviet era, because it affects all science—chemistry, physics, life sciences, medicine and math. Government pushes it. “Progressive” scientists promote it. Professional societies assume it. The National Institutes of Health and Energy Department require it.
When applying for openings as a university scientist today, job candidates record of supporting “social justice” can carry greater weight than their scientific achievements. But scientific research cannot be conducted via a process that gives a low priority to science itself.
So we wrote a paper, co-authored by 27 diverse scientists. Men and women of various ages, ethnicities, countries of origin, political affiliations and career stages. We included faculty from community colleges and top research universities. Two Nobel laureates signed on.
The crux of our paper: Science that doesn’t prioritize merit doesn’t work; substituting ideological dogma for quality is a shortcut to disaster. We documented the continuing efforts to elevate social justice over scientific rigor. We warned of the consequences of taking an ideological approach to research.
Our intent was to defend judging science based on merit alone. But merit isn’t much in vogue anywhere these days.
The editor of one scientific journal warned that our thesis was “downright hurtful”. Another editor wrote that “the concept of merit … has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow.”
Our paper will be published by the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a peer-reviewed publication whose aim is to promote “free inquiry on controversial topics.” Who would imagine scientific merit has become a controversial concept.
The future is dicey when the fundamental principle undergirding all of science—the best ideas and technologies should be adopted—becomes “controversial”. ~
Blessings,
Dan Nygaard