2013-10-03

Another Science Magazine Gets Political

At least Nature isn't shutting off their comments. Instead, the have a poll asking:
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of intelligence?
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of race?
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of violence?
Should scientists refrain from studying the genetics of sexuality?

These poll questions are in an article about scientists researching genetics: Ethics: Taboo genetics
Probing the biological basis of certain traits ignites controversy. But some scientists choose to cross the red line anyway.

And then the editorial for Nature on the topic is titled: Dangerous work

The editorial is a political screed against genetic science, telling scientists that they must toe the party line when reporting their results, and work hard to make sure results are not "minsinterpreted." You can research it (but you shouldn't), but don't engage in any crimethink or report any hatefacts.

You can very clearly see the line between science and the "science establishment" or what I'd call "political scientists."

On of the quoted scientists in the article had this to say about it: Deemed Naughty by Nature
The first quote refers to the discovery power of our sample of 2000 gifted individuals. We would be quite happy to find even one genome-wide significant hit. The second quote refers to my prediction for what will be possible eventually (perhaps decades from now). Juxtaposing the quotes this way is deliberately misleading.

If you thought the attack on global warming skeptics is big, wait until the geneticists discover a hatefact.

Science has mainly become a political tool of the establishment and the growing authoritarianism is a response to the loss of control. The Internet plays some role (as far as giving dissenters a platform), but this goes well beyond the destruction of gatekeepers that we see in media. The rise of China and other emerging markets means these nations can fund advanced scientific research and provide a safe haven for scientists. There is irony in an authoritarian scientific establishment being outmaneuvered by an authoritarian government, and some critics are quick to draw parallels between Chinese genetic research and Nazi science programs. However, this is more political rhetoric against a growing area of scientific research.

Genetic research, I expect, will be far more contentious than global warming and climate models. The long march of the Enlightenment has elevated equality above nearly every other political goal, and it has elevated materialism over religion. Genetic science is in some ways the perfect weapon to disrupt the status quo. It is superficially materialistic, but it's findings could potentially stick a dagger into the heart of Enlightenment thinking and the concept of equality. In America, at least, the opponents of equality are usually painted as racist and sexist, but if one reads the critics of equality (you can now read them on Google books, they will not be taught in school) one finds their arguments often rest on observed inequality, on the inherent differences between men and women, different races, religions and cultures. They did not argue against equality out of hate or their social standing (though some surely did), but out of the differences they perceived. This is why Nature is telling these scientists to be so careful. Their work will have implications well beyond the science itself. Equality is an idea, not a reality. The observed reality is that there are differences. It took 300 years of effort to push the idea of equality to the top of the ideological heap, and now these genetic scientists may destroy all that work with one or two discoveries. It is also a recognition by the establishment that they have no argument against the science. if calling scientists racist or sexist doesn't make them stop, they will be unable to prevent a major blow to the idea of equality.

It may seem a contradiction that genetic science (which seems very materialistic and deterministic) will rise alongside religion, but this is also due to the peak social mood and rise of Enlightenment thinking, which separated science and religion. In any event, the focus is the decline of the ruling ideology. Genetic science and religion could be 100% opposed, but they are also opposed to the establishment.

The decline in social mood and the major political/cultural shift (which will unfold over decades and centuries) underway is not a smooth or even transition. In the near term of years though, the actions of the scientific, political, media and cultural establishment against genetic science, against religion, and against enemies yet to emerge, will appear as a growing authoritarian response as social mood declines. Later, the establishment may survive by shifting its ideas and incorporating science. Some have speculated that if genetic science does find a major genetic role in human differences, instead of destroying equality, it may lead to the idea that the government must intervene to balance the differences between groups—much as it does today. Instead of destroying the idea of wealth redistribution and affirmative action policies based on assumed racism and sexism, it could mean these programs continue based on the accepted scientific research that shows actual differences exist. That is a long way off, if it even happens. Many scientists are still skeptical about the ability for scientists to understand how genes interact, but you can tell the weak position that the "political scientists" find themselves in by their authoritarian response to the research; they would rather these questions not be asked.

No comments:

Post a Comment