American Scientist

It seems every other week there’s a new article on how scientists should escape the ivory tower and reach out to the “general public.” A lack of public trust in scientists is leading to problems such as delayed action on climate change. In many ways, social media has been a boon, allowing scientists to open the door and bring the public into the ivory tower to poke at our pipettes and scales, smell the chemicals and bobcat urine, taste the day-old coffee and stale pizza, and listen to the hissing of turtles and whistling of fume hoods. At the same time, we are humanizing ourselves with nerdy jokes and excitement over summer blockbusters, squeeing over cute animal pictures, and commiserating over our disappointments or upsetting moments while conducting research. For perhaps the first time in history people have easy access to our labs and our lives, and are able to see how passionate we are about science. For perhaps the first time in history, scientists are focused on making science less mysterious and more open.

Simultaneously, there is a push for science to become more diverse across racial, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, and gender axes. Although the population of scientists isn’t truly representative of America’s diversity, we are doing better with representation than in the past. I see this attempt to diversify science and properly represent America’s diversity within the same movement as the escape from the ivory tower and opening science to the public. Both actions will lead to the ultimate goal of increasing trust in scientists. Only when people know what we do, how we do it, and why we do it, and are able to see themselves in science will they be willing to trust us when it comes to the issues that influence all of our lives

Most scientists are faced with concerns that make many of today’s political issues impossible to ignore.

• Facebook
• Twitter

Politically active scientists who are advocates for social justice are a necessary and logical extension of both escaping the ivory tower and diversifying science. But there are many scientists who feel that those who share this profession should not take sides in the social sphere and keep their eyes fixed on their data points. There are people who see the opening of scientific fields to scientists who are compelled to speak on issues such as racism, homophobia, and disabled access as leading to the marginalization (read: discrediting) of those fields. Yes, if scientists become advocates for issues, then those who wish to discredit them will discredit them. But ask yourself this: Exactly how does calling for the rights of Natives and blacks to have clean water to drink negatively affect my ability to estimate bobcat density? How does pushing for the right for everyone to marry whomever they wish negatively impact someone else’s search for ways to cure cancer? Doesn’t it matter more that we acknowledge our humanity and care about something rather than stand loftily and coolly above it all?

Most scientists are faced with concerns that make many of today’s political issues impossible to ignore. More often than not, scientists are grief-stricken after seeing the latest video of a cop shooting a black man who was complying with all orders. Many, if not most, scientists must worry about whether they can afford medication for a serious or chronic disease. Many scientists worry about government-sanctioned disrespect to their ancestors and threats to their community’s water sources, or about accessibility to their offices, or about feeling secure enough to go to happy hour with their colleagues and not have to wonder what they should do if the visiting speaker gets too handsy, or about being able to use the bathroom and love the one they love without being threatened with bodily harm. The majority of scientific culture is based on and dictated by an assumption that those who worry about any of the above are rare. This isn’t right.

Science has never been apolitical, but for a lot of America’s history, those who practiced it were privileged enough to be so.

• Facebook
• Twitter

Within this century we will see forces reshape our sociopolitical and environmental landscape. Despite the global north using up more than its fair share of the world’s resources and emitting more of the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, it is the global south that will suffer most. Science can estimate the numbers of people who will die, the numbers of people who will face water shortages and extreme heat waves and droughts, the number of people who will become sick from new and more prevalent diseases, but it can’t tell us whether something is right or fair. Only our inherent sense of justice can tell us that, and only our loyalty to our fellow humans can push us to fight for their welfare.

Science has never been apolitical, but for a lot of America’s history, those who practiced it were privileged enough to be so. That time has come and gone. If we are to diversify science, increase public trust in scientists, and adequately face the challenges that are facing humanity in the next hundred years, scientists can no longer afford to be apolitical. We must become political. We must become passionate. We must become human.

The views and opinions expressed in this post are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of American Scientist or its publisher, Sigma Xi.