Read on Twitter
I REJECT THE IDEA that there's only one way to build a scientific community. I reject that the fate of science rests on empowering certain scientists regardless of their bad behavior. I reject excluding everybody that doesn't resemble the majority group in academia. 1/
I reject that science can only be done by people that "deserve" it. I reject that "merit" is how we should decide. I reject that the people who currently decide are the best deciders. I reject that science requires systems that magnify social disparities at every choke point. 2/
I reject that pursuit of truth is more important than serving our society. I reject that scientists currently pursue truth above all else. Certainly not above job opportunities, funding or tenure. I'm not saying people lie but they know which truths to emphasize. 3/
What research is restricted because governments forbid it? There are areas I can't work in as a foreign national. What areas are under-researched due to lack of funding? As a pragmatist, I accept this. But all you noble defenders of scientific truth above all else, why do you? 4/
Perhaps we can add social inequality to the list of interests to which we scientists often bow and rarely acknowledge. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if our science promotes social equality and if it doesn't, we should favor a science that does. That is my radical proposal. /
/
Addendum 1: If you're mad because you think I said I don't care about truth, I didn't. I said that "*pursuit* of truth" isn't and shouldn't be our highest ideal. Ethics is higher. Most agree we shouldn't do unethical human experiments. So this idea shouldn't be controversial.
Addendum 2: If you're surprised somebody with a strong stats background (from *gasp* Harvard) would think like this about "truth", it's uncontroversial for statisticians to say "All models are wrong but some are useful". We live at the boundary of theory and practice.
Addendum 3: Do you feel like I'm politicizing science? The 1st question of science is what to study. The 2nd is who will study it. The next questions are what counts as evidence, how will it be evaluated and how to determine consensus. How do we answer these without politics?
