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.