No, dude. Consequences for sexual predators wont harm scientific progress.
Fed up with the status quo, Lorraine gives a ranty response to "Will the Moralization of Science Give Us Better
Science?" by Yves Gingras, University of Quebec, Montreal. She really should have been doing
something else.
Reframing the Argument: The question shouldn't be whether
science will be hampered by moralization but rather: If you want to participate
in the privileged world of scientific discovery, then be a better person. Your
career will be affected by your personal choices and actions, even if you are a
man. Science grows from the soil of our culture; if you think your science is
value-free, you are likely part of the dominant norm—your norms are invisible
to you.
Key Philosophical Standpoints:
1. Science
and Moral Standpoints: Gingras highlights implicit norms like 'keeping
quiet,' 'putting up with harassment,' and 'not challenging the status quo.'
These norms have historically favoured dominant men who use sexual and physical
domination for control. If universities explicitly promote respect and
self-control, how can that harm science?
2. Science
Continues Despite Moral Standpoints: Science has thrived even with
ethical standards that are less than a century old. The exponential progress
since then suggests that ethics do not hinder science.
3. Holistic
Approach to Science: Science, like a garden that needs careful nurturing, must be approached
holistically. Discovering new knowledge about the universe is only one aspect;
applying science in contexts like plastics, weapons, and forestry is equally
important and influenced by cultural values.
4. Value-Based
Science: The science of discovering the universe differs from the
science of plastics, weapons, or forestry. These fields grow in the cultural
gardens of our institutions and collaborations.
5. Human
Consequences and Science: Scientists who harm others (e.g., through
sexual harassment) should face consequences. Removing their funding or peer
review privileges will not hinder science. Teams, not individuals, win funding
bids, and robust collaborations can continue the work. Protecting bad actors
under the guise of preserving science is misguided.
6. Science
and Society: Science is not separate from the society it emerges from.
Poor behaviour from scientists affects their colleagues and the progress of
science. Affirmative action in terms of diversity, inclusivity, and justice
ensures institutions reflect the communities they serve.
7. Awareness
of Biases: Scientists should be aware of personal biases and variables
that colour their perspective. This awareness fosters better science.
The Impact of Poor Behaviour: The article suggests that
protecting bad actors may preserve good science, but it also protects poor
science. The behaviour of scientists affects their colleagues and the overall
productivity of research. Institutions need to address these issues to ensure a
healthier scientific environment.
Conclusion: If you want the privilege of participating in
scientific breakthroughs, be a decent human being. There is a long line of
capable, ethical academics ready to contribute. While I agree with Gingras that
publications should not be removed from the academic arena, the validity of
science should withstand critique beyond moral issues. Science is a human
activity within human constraints and cultures. How we respond to poor behaviour
in our institutions makes a significant difference in fostering better science
Read for yourself https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/2/208/htm
Comments