Feminist Critique of Science

Science has never asked whether something should be done but if it can it be done. Both scientists and capitalists argue that this form of thinking implies neutrality. Scientists are generally not interested in the morality of a scientific question but in whether or not they can answer the question. When using stem cells for scientific research, while the public is having a debate on whether or not stem cells are ethical, scientists debate whether the use of stem cells will further scientific consensus on various questions. Scientists never ask whether or not it is ethical to use animals in their research but whether or not it can help. Contrary to most scientists, I find this an incredibly biased mode of research which has been complicit in oppression throughout the world. 

Claiming that their questions are neutral gives scientists the ability to avoid contemplating challenging moral questions that may impede their research. This leads to incredibly biased thinking which undermines scientists claims to neutrality. If scientists were to ask whether or not something was ethical before beginning research their thinking would be more balanced and unbiased. If scientists had asked whether or not creating an atomic bomb were ethical rather than asking if it were possible we could have avoided Hiroshima and incredible amounts of human suffering. The fact that scientists did not ask the public for permission to create weapons which would be employed upon the populace suggests the science itself is complicit in systematic oppression and suffering in these instances. 

First off, the questions that scientists ask are incredibly biased. How often do we hear of a scientist asking how we could feed all the people of the world and provide basic needs to our growing population? A question like this would have profound ramifications for the scientific community and the world at large because we could use rigorous mean tested science to reduce human suffering on a global scale. I believe that the reason that scientists are not asking this question is because there are few incentives for doing so in a capitalist society. Indeed when most scientists begin to challenge the status quo by taking direct action against the capitalist class they are told that their political activities may interfere with their jobs.

The most important problem facing us in a capitalist society is who control the means of production, education and creative enterprises. Despite the desires of most scientists to remain neutral in the political realm does not mean that the political realm does not interest itself with scientists. In order to make science a democratic institution which works on behalf of all people science needs to be socialized. Science institutions and laboratories need to be publicly financed and governed by bodies of both scientists and community members. Scientists need to not only study nature and society, but create solutions to the problems we face. If scientists only ask whether something can be done inevitably they will be used by the capitalists to create more atrocities like Monsanto and atomic bombs. If we can shift our thinking to whether something should be done and how can be benefit the greatest number combined with the open source nature of science, science could once again be the revolutionary force that is has been throughout modern history. 

 I would like to applaud Nature in the last few months for their synthesis of research and taking action to promote the public good. By calling on scientists to take direct action against the oil empire and the various governments around the world, Nature has shown that scientific research does not have to lead to despair and confusion from the larger community but could lead to action which generates solutions for the most oppressed. Scientists challenging some of the most profitable institutions in the West alongside grassroots movements is a phenomenal example of the potential power of science is challenging the status quo. When science begins to work with oppressed people to bring about positive social change we will begin to see great change. It is time for scientists to start acknowledging that their is a war going and whether they like it or not they will have to choose sides. As a scientific community, it is time that we side with the people and use our research to further the public good and collective liberation. 

Science is not Neutral

Science and technology are not neutral in the struggle against oppression and domination. Many revolutionaries have rightly critiqued science and technology as aiding the ruling class in continued domination of people and the planet. Unfortunately, very few of these critiques have come from scientists themselves. Most scientists, even radical scientists declare science is entirely neutral. They claim technology has been used by both oppressed people's and the oppressors and that their role in scientific research plays no role in continued domination. As a revolutionary biochemistry student, I would like to show over the course of my blog that this is an entirely a false assumption. While science has aided in many humanist efforts, at it's core science and technology have always been one of the primary modes of social control used by the capitalists to control the masses. As science students,we are taught that our results and research are simply questions about the world that are completely unrelated to the public sphere. As science students, our curricula is based on route memorization of replication schemes which can be readily accessed on Wikipedia. Students are not required to take classes on science and the public interests, let alone given access to classes that connect science to the larger sphere of knowledge. We are taught to disdain the "easy majors" such as the humanities which are "not real science." There is a reason that sociology has a higher percentage of revolutionaries : sociology students are actually taught to see the larger structures of oppression while we are doing the "hard science" of memorizing DNA replication schemes. Enough is enough! Science is not neutral and it the duty of the next generation of scientists and revolutionaries to expropriate an institution that has been denied the masses to serve the common good.
Some of the subjects I will cover include; the pharmaceutical industry and patent rights which give excessive control to pharmaceutical corporations which prevent poor people from accessing basic medications throughout the world, genetic engineering especially Monsanto and other technologies that have allowed corporations to destroy indigenous crops and livelihoods, science as an institution which specifically discriminates against women and minorities from participation, scientific language which excludes the public from a critical realm of knowledge, technologies which have been used to eliminate jobs and work so that corporations could increase profits rather than increase leisure for all, science curricula and the prevention of critical thinking about structural oppression, the reluctance of public participation of the scientific community, the systematic elimination by scientists and doctors of folk medicine and science so that people have to rely on experts and professionals instead of their community and finally the funding of programs at universities to science and technology programs and prevent the development of other studies and subjects.
The idea that science is intrinsically an oppressive institution is not a new idea to anarchist movements and has been identified as one of the causes of the impending ecological collapse. I aim to give legitimacy to these concerns as an insider and as someone with access to scientific jargon. Until science is seen as a means of public control and folk science is respected to the degree of laboratory science, science and technology will continue to be one of the most prominent methods of social control. This blog is meant to alert the public to issues within the scientific community as well as serve as a call for scientists to begin to question the legitimacy of an institution that has all too often aided in the systematic destruction of entire people's and nations. It is time that we work with the public to create publicly controlled and accountable scientific community that works for the common good and the elimination of oppression.
-Ramblings of a Revolutionary Science Student