265
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 53 points 1 year ago

Well, I wouldn’t say all barriers…

Ethical matters, such as experimentation on animals and especially humans, need barriers in place. We don’t need another Josef Mengele

But I agree with the intended sentiment

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago

Also, we need barriers related to quality, otherwise you get shit like Andrew Wakefield trying to sell his alternative vaccine, and in the process creating the modern antivax movement

[-] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 5 points 1 year ago

On board with both of you.

Science that isn't ethical science is a huge problem we can't just wave away, and science that isn't good science is also a huge problem we can't just wave away.

On the other hand, good science that is also ethical science can be immensely useful when it helps to describe the world and predict things that could happen accurately.

[-] taanegl@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

Eh, no. Ethics committees for you.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Uhhhh, the dominant historical source of academy science is race science. We require many barriers to science because science has historically been completely entrenched in oppression and it hasn't really ever stopped

[-] kristina@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i believe this is addressed somewhere on the scihub website. racial hatred and bigotry is a barrier to science. the founder of scihub is a communist

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree with the sentiment in the context of it being a file sharing site for academic texts but it's not worded so well barriers in the way of science could also include ethical concerns to certain kinds of experiment

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Racial hatred and bigotry are individualistic barriers to science.

Racialized capitalism is the foundation of the modern university. Harvard resisted getting rid of its slaves and when they did they bought and sold people in the Caribbean outside of the reach of US law. Disgustingly high numbers of medical schools were built on the basis of dissecting and experimenting on black and indigenous people.

Most ivy league schools still have the remains of scores of black and indigenous people in their museums, their libraries, and even their classrooms. Entire skeletons of enslaved people were prepared for classroom demonstrations and used in contemporary memory!

The money for these universities came from the slave trade and from slave labor. The schools themselves were often built with slave labor. The patrons of the university funded race science to justify the structures of racism.

It has nothing to do with racial hatred and bigotry.

The structural racism funded the creation and expansion of universities. MIT would not exist if it weren't for the need for textile producers to build machines to make more money so the money that got poured into MIT was the money that was extracted from slave labor picking cotton.

Undoing this harm and bringing about justice through reparations is going to really undermine university endowments. It's going to require removing names of buildings, dishonoring scientific "heroes", and preventing it from happening again is going to be seen as barriers to science.

[-] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

Can you explain what you mean about historical race science? I've never heard of it.

Either way, even shitty science should be freely accessible so your point doesn't make any sense.

[-] UmbraVivi@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Either way, even shitty science should be freely accessible so your point doesn't make any sense.

It really shouldn't. We saw through the COVID vaccine hysteria just how harmful shitty science can be. A lot of people died completely preventable deaths because we live under the illusion that reason prevails under the free marketplace of ideas or some nonsense like that.

[-] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Strong disagree, given the vaccine hysteria was on the part of the deniers. The science supported and continues to support the vaccines effectiveness and safety. It's primarily people who aren't scientists and don't know how to interpret medical studies that are claiming that they are dangerous or ineffective.

Nice to meet you, I'm a medical scientist that specializes in Alzheimer's research. Absolutely none of my colleagues think vaccines are dangerous.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The media and the general population do not recognize any one single specific scientific organization as an authority to depend upon, so being smug about your claimed place in the ivory tower does nothing to stop people from getting false science from somewhere other than that ivory tower.

EDIT: And how exactly are those masses that you condescend to supposed to distinguish "shitty" science from outright false science? And why should "shitty" science things be given validity and attention (which may well include race science because you never said otherwise in this thread) while you somehow distinguish that away from antivax nonsense? They're both nonsense but you seem to be making pious excuses for one kind of it.

Stating "post all the science" must feel good to say but it does nothing to stop the posting of false science calling itself science and many people going along with that. You yourself claimed (or feigned) ignorance of race science as false science, which shows just how insidious such things really are.

[-] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

Good. There isn't a single scientific organization, given the whole point of science is democratizing information research.

General populace are supposed to rely on the top researchers in their field to disseminate information. These top researchers are usually the least controversial which is why they are trusted by the (again) democratized scientific community. I'll say this because a lot of people don't realize it: if you have any controversy in your past regarding misinformation or "fixing" results, and it ever gets out, you are immediately shunned and your work will never be looked at seriously again. You will lose your job and all credibility immediately. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it is heavily discouraged.

If we want to combat misinformation we should be encouraging people to trust scientists and not get information from organizations with ulterior motives.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

If we want to combat misinformation we should be encouraging people to trust scientists

That sounds really grand on paper but in reality the societal definition of who a scientist is (and who is a credible scientist) is blurred to the point that you can piously disavow antivax conspiracy theories (some of them pushed by quack scientists with dubious qualifications) but also proclaim that even "shit science" should be freely released for all to see (with "race science" being mentioned in particular with you glibly disavowing knowledge of it) and you still haven't provided a distinct measurable difference between the two.

You really seem to be more in favor of "race science" than antivax nonsense, and they are both nonsense.

[-] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not saying trust any random person who calls themself a scientist. Myself included.

I'm saying people should trust reputable scientists at the top of their field. Ideally, journalists should do the leg work to identify these people and give them a voice, and describe why they should be trusted.

That doesn't happen with nearly all right-leaning journalistic publications, unfortunately, resulting in a huge population not knowing who to trust or just mistrusting scientists in general.

Edit: I realize I didn't answer your point on freedom of access. I do firmly believe all science should be accessible, because no single study should ever be taken as fact. Science works through repetition, and if you have a study that disagrees with nearly everything else then it's either a brand new way of looking at things (and will be supported in the future) or is junk (and will be ignored). But just because something is junk doesn't mean we should prevent people from accessing it.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

But just because something is junk doesn't mean we should prevent people from accessing it.

Again, after glibly dismissing antivax conspiracy theories as unscientific under the presumption that no one credible would believe them (not that that stopped the spread and distribution of them to the general public) you're suggestion that all of the harmful prior false science listed at the following:

https://legacyofslavery.harvard.edu/report

https://slaveryandjustice.brown.edu/

https://slavery.virginia.edu/

https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/nzo1tx4elaerg13akjwxuve3pv9sb03a

https://news.emory.edu/features/2021/09/emory-unpacks-history-of-slavery-and-dispossession/index.html

should get openly and freely distributed under some idealistic notion of "set it all free" while you already derided the public for buying into antivax nonsense. Your idealism can and will hurt a lot more people because you clearly are more fine with racism than antivax conspiracy theories.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Posadas@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

Can you explain what you mean about historical race science? I've never heard of it.

Basically it boils down to making up any bullshit excuses possible to justify us-foreign-policy

[-] Posadas@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

That's just us-foreign-policy but for "whites"

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 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 2 points 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 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 2 points 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 1 points 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 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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?

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

So your response is "no, u?"

You're very good at putting words into people's mouths

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 3 points 1 year ago

Only sound Marxist-Leninist science like Lysenkoism!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] captcha@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Do you understand that the primary barriers being referred to here are intellectual property? I suspect you aren't in favor of propritarian intellectualism. What do you think those racist academies opinions on intellectual property has been?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Yora@diyrpg.org 8 points 1 year ago

True science! Without compassion, decency, and humanity.

Yay...

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Love it, doubly so since it has a raven on it.

New desktop after I run it thru Upscayl.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
265 points (97.5% liked)

Science Memes

11004 readers
2332 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS