11.2 When Is Science Suspect

The capacity for science to be misused to reinforce existing power structures.

The Lesson in Context

After discussing how science may go wrong in its form in 11.1 Pathological Science, we now discuss how science may go wrong in its societal outcome. Through a discussion activity, students will appreciate the difficulty in measuring humans in a way that is absolutely free of confounds that have discriminatory implications, and thus learn the importance of social responsibility as a scientist and including a more representative array of voices in selecting scientific questions and designing measures.

1.1 Introduction and When Is Science Relevant

• If science is to be used in societal decision making, scientists must be mindful of its potential to cause harm.

1.2 Shared Reality and Modeling

• When studying humans, it is often necessary to define terms operationally, such as "what behaviors constitute altruism." Such operationalizations may be a crude measure of a more realist human trait, if one even exists. Cultural and personal biases may easily cause such definitions to favor the researchers' own group at the expense of others.

10.1 Confirmation Bias

• It is tempting, though improper, for scientists to only publish results in a way that confirms the predominant belief. When it comes to human groups, this belief may be a mere stereotype.

Takeaways

Learning GoalsDefinitionsExamplesCommon Misconceptions

After this lesson, students should

1. Recognize the potential to abuse science for social and political ends.
2. Show heightened caution in situations in which science involves the study of human groups and subsequent validation of societal power structures.
3. Recognize that you yourself are always involved in some social dynamic that may be relevant to the assessment of any particular study of human groups.

While it may be easy to spot cases where science has been used intentionally to validate preexisting societal power structures, the goal of this lesson is to bring attention to the possibility that one may inadvertently use science in such a way, through negligence or even with the best intentions, especially when it comes to the study of human groups.

Just World Fallacy

The tendency to believe that outcomes are deserved and existing social structures are justified.

Reliability

The extent to which some metric is consistently measurable.

Validity

The extent to which some metric or scientific concept reflects some real external thing.

External Validity

The extent to which the result of an RCT generalizes to the world at large. There are several reasons results might not generalize.

• Longevity of Effect

Lab studies tend to measure dependent variables immediately after the intervention, but often inferences are desired for long-term effects.

• Disruption Effect

Awareness of being in an experiment.

• Novelty Effect

Novelty of the context may alter the effects of the experiment.

The Flynn Effect

Scores from IQ tests are typically normalized such as to set the average score to be 100. But, throughout the 20th century, there was a consistent increase in how well people performed on IQ tests. This means that when newer test subjects take older tests, the average scores tended to be greater than 100.

---

Cognitive Capabilities by Ethnicity and Gender

For a long time many scientists asserted that women and ethnic minorities were less intelligent than men of European descent, using studies of cognitive performance normalized to the skills such men spent their time developing. This claim was used to justify withholding educational and vocational opportunities for both women and minorities, as well as institutional and legal power.

---

Genetic Description of Pellagra

In 1916, Charles Davenport asserted that the disease pellagra was genetic (racial). However, it is actually caused due to nutritional factors (a lack of vitamin B3).

The Hereditary Factor In Pellagra

The introduction from Davenport's book describing his racial theory of pellagra.

---

Representation and External Validity

Historically, psychological or medical studies are often performed on predominantly white, wealthy, young males, with conclusions that are nevertheless generalized to the culturally and genetically diverse global population. For example, while blacks and Latinos make up 30% of the US population, they represent only 6% of participants in federally funded studies. While the studies themselves may not be discriminatory explicitly or implicitly, the differing validity of their application to diverse populations may be a source of furthered inequality.

Diversity in Clinical and Biomedical Research: A Promise Yet to Be Fulfilled

A paper on this phenomenon.

Only a racist scientist could produce a racially discriminatory study.

As an example, a perfectly well-intentioned scientist studying the level of altruism in people across ethnic groups may come up with an operational definition of altruism that is based on their own cultural understanding of the term and fails to include alternative expressions of altruism in other cultures.

Additional Content

You must be logged in to see this content.

---

⟨

Previous

11.1 Pathological Science

⟩

Next

12.1 Wisdom of Crowds and Herd Thinking