• freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Race science is the science that emerged to rationalize and justify the structure of racism. It is the science that emerged to justify political race structures. Race science is what allowed black and indigenous children to be ripped away from their parents while other parents watched and participated and said “This is good”.

    That race science was funded by the elite or society. They extracted wealth through settler colonialism and racialized capitalism and then donated it to the universities as “philanthropy” and used their influence to direct more research into race science and other endeavors to maximize their profits.

    Making research freely available is not removing all barriers to science. It is removing but one barrier to science. There are many other barriers that exist, have existed, or could exist.

    In this way, saying that all barriers to science must be removed ignores the historical facts that the origins of academic science in the US are rooted almost entirely in race science. Even medical schools were locations of mass racialized atrocities where black and brown bodies were bought, imported, experimented on, killed, and desecrated in order to meet the demands of donors and chasing more endowment money. That science was used to further establish the schools’ reputation and revenue streams.

    Fixing this will be seen as a barrier to science, as fixing it required dismantling major portions of the socio-politico-economic structures that maintain academies of science. Reparations alone would make many scientific institutions disappear overnight.

    • Dr Cog@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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.