My once-favorite society continues to take ideological positions rather than scientific ones, and it continues its habit of wokeness with this latest announcement.
Even after getting some pushback from members about its misguided announcement about the “spectrum of sex”, the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE) persists in taking political positions (in some cases having little or nothing to do with evolution per se), implicitly violating institutional neutrality and chilling the speech of SSE members. The SSE Council sent out this memo two days ago. (It doesn’t seem to be on their website.) While their concern for science funding does indeed fall within the ambit of the SSE, they are now changing the mission of the Society (as they did with the last announcement) from promoting the study of evolution to also enacting social justice. And as time passes, and as I hear about the annual meetings and read their statements, they’re getting more “progressive” all the time. The letter below spends quite a bit of time advocating for “equity” (they don’t seem to know what the word means) and DEI. The bolding is theirs announcement.
February 10, 2025
Dear SSE members,
The Society for the Study of Evolution leadership has been following recent developments at the US federal level, as they affect teaching, the conduct of scientific research in evolution, and the people who do both. We are deeply concerned about misrepresentation of science, deletion of public data and reports from governmental websites, and illegal attacks on science funding and DEI mandates. We stand committed to supporting our community and our mission: to promote evolutionary biology research, education, application, outreach, and community building in an equitable and globally inclusive manner.
The daily attacks from the administration on science and its infrastructure are of great concern. Scientific research and education require funding. Halts or suspension of already awarded funding or non-negotiated changes to associated indirect costs are untenable. Such interruptions create unnecessary problems for investigators, post-docs, students and universities alike, and can derail ongoing experiments. The deletion of public data and reports from governmental websites amounts to book burning and cannot be tolerated. Likewise, the forced archiving of proposal calls that support development of a diverse pool of scientists has serious consequences.
Taken as a whole, this attack on the scientific enterprise threatens the production of knowledge by US scientists, with fall-out [sic] that will affect the health and well-being of our society. Basic research provides the foundational knowledge on which applied research is built, which in turn is translated into advances in human welfare. The US has historically been a leader in this area, benefiting from diversity in the workforce and from public funding. This leadership role is now significantly threatened.
What has the SSE done so far?
In response to the January 25, 2025 Executive Order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”, SSE and our sister societies, The American Society of Naturalists and the Society of Systematic Biologists, are sending a letter to the White House and all members of Congress clarifying the scientific consensus regarding the definition of sex. We will continue to watch events as they unfold and will respond accordingly. We welcome opinions and ideas from the membership on how we can best support you during this time.
What can you do?
Make your voice heard. If you are a US citizen, contact your congressional representatives, both in the House and Senate. Calling is more effective than writing an email or a letter, but anything is good. Personal stories of the impact on you and your science are most effective. Engage with groups that advocate for public policy. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) offers communications and advocacy training and opportunities to meet with lawmakers through the AIBS Congressional Visits Day event on April 28-30. Funding support is available from SSE for this, with an application deadline of February 17. Larger societies (e.g., AAAS, Ecological Society of America) also sponsor advocacy training.
Communicate with the public. Send an op-ed to your local newspaper, telling the story of the impact on you and your science. One resource for drafting a compelling op-ed is at https://www.theopedproject.org/askajournalist. Story-telling resources are also useful, and a multitude can be found through an online search (e.g., here and here). Continue posting on social media, vetting for accuracy.
Use your local resources and expand your network. Work with your institution to support spending of current grant funding. Think about your network. Who do you know who knows someone who could be helpful?
Tell us how this has affected you. We would like to know how you have personally been affected by the attacks on science and scientists and solutions that you or your academic unit have developed in response. Send your personal experiences and any ideas for further action by SSE to president@evolutionsociety.org or submit them to SSE Council through this form.
In sum, the SSE leadership reaffirms our commitment to the SSE mission: we will work tirelessly on behalf of the membership to promote and defend evolutionary biology, and to support all the diverse people that form the bedrock of this field. Although there are many moving parts, daily stressors, and huge unknowns that members of SSE are currently grappling with, we note that the attacks on historically excluded members of society are reprehensible. We encourage our membership to be unwavering in your support of the most vulnerable within the community. Attacks on science and science funding are likewise untenable. We emphasize that defending evolutionary biology and promoting inclusive science is the ethical and moral way forward.
Sincerely,
SSE Council
Scientific societies of course should advocate for positions that further the mission of the society, which, as I recall when I was President, was to further knowledge, research, teaching, and publishing in evolution. Now, however, they have clearly changed their mission in the direction of social justice:
In sum, the SSE leadership reaffirms our commitment to the SSE mission: we will work tirelessly on behalf of the membership to promote and defend evolutionary biology, and to support all the diverse people that form the bedrock of this field.
Now the membership of any society is diverse in the sense that it contains people with different backgrounds and views, but it’s also clear that by “diversity” the SSE means ethnic or racial diversity. Does anybody think it means anything else? And so the SSE is now promoting equity as well as evolution. They imply, without proof, that a diverse group of people will produce better evolutionary biology. That is likely true for “diversity of interests” but is it true for diversity of ethnicity? Who knows?
Of course the SSE should not show any bias towards any group, and a statement to that effect would suffice on its website. Further, since evolutionary biology is not limited to the U.S., the SSE should sometimes hold meetings with the societies of other countries, which they have done, and offer meeting grants to students from outside the U.S.. But other countries have their own evolution societies, too.
As far as “equity” is concerned, it usually means ethnic representation in the society in proportions to the existing groups in society, not “equal opportunity”. But opportunity and representation are conflated in the sentence below:
We stand committed to supporting our community and our mission: to promote evolutionary biology research, education, application, outreach, and community building in an equitable and globally inclusive manner.
At the end, they urge the members to take political action, mostly to oppose executive orders of Trump that, the Council believes, hurt the SSE. They don’t seem to realize that most members just want to concentrate on doing their research.
The point of all this, though, is just to give my view that my once-beloved SSE has, like many other societies, has become political, and has changed its mission to emphasize social justice as well as science. I highly doubt that this announcement will have any beneficial results for the SSE or society as a whole; it is an exercise in flaunting the society’s virtue. If there is a lesson here, it’s that while the SSE may make political statements that further its scientific mission, it should stay out of ideology and politics that are irrelevant or tangential to evolution.
If scientific institutions give the impression of being left-wing lobby groups, more interested in “social justice” than in science and truth, then Republicans will respond by wondering whether they should be funded by the taxpayer.
And, by all accounts, this time round they are not just playing.
I advocate patience; the tide will eventually shift and all this commotion about social justice in the pursuit of scientific inquiry will run it’s course. In due time, inclusion and diversity will seem so dated. What were they thinking? Science is science and a scientist by any standards, should be amenable to critical thinking skills and not the fickle demands of social trends and political expediency. It wasn’t that long ago in the 1950s when women and minorities in advanced fields of research, let alone government and corporate environments were not even a thought experiment. If climate upheavals and AI don’t make this all rather academic drivel, we will will soon find out. Anyway, thank ceiling cat for strong coffee and a warm blueberry muffin.
“In due time, inclusion and diversity will seem so dated. What were they thinking?”
I hope you’re right, and I believe you are. I am of the opinion that, at some future time, people will look back at folks from this generation in wonder at much of the idiocy which abounds.
I admit that for my American friends many of these developments are deplorable. And I’m sure this kind of posturing gives a warm fuzzy feeling to the SSE officers. But from outside the USA these statements in response to US federal and state politics seem narrow-minded and parochial. The SSE council doesn’t put out statements on equity, inclusion, and funding for science in China or Africa (or even Canada). Why should I care what they think in particular about those issues in the USA? Here in Canada this kind of ubiquitous American cultural hegemony is generating a lot of resentment. The activation energy for that came from the threat of tariffs on our exports, but it has spread widely to other resentments. In the tiny corner of that world where the moralists on the SSE council live, a more honest approach would be for them to stop the pretence of being an “international” society and just admit they’re the American Society for the Study of Evolution.
Further, if the Courts permit, those whose opinions the SSE opposes (the White House, Congress, etc) will simply and easily use the SSE’s own words against them. The SSE has already lost the political fight (for now). Their only recourse is the Courts, where the White House will turn the SSE statements against them, demonstrating clearly the SSE’s commitment to a hazy wave of political goals where their should be only clearly-defined scientific ones.
SSE is currently a 501(c)3 organization, meaning that donations are tax-deductible. Overt political activity by such organizations is not permitted. I don’t know how blatant one has to be to get that precious status revoked, but the actions recommended under the “What can you do?” paragraph certainly ought to be. Time to notify the IRS.
Sounds like the society’s officers who wrote the linked letter about the “scientific consensus” on the definition of sex really need to read Dawkins’s recent article on the subject, since they seem a bit confused about it themselves.
As a retired science teacher and biologist I am trying to understand how people around me think about the question so many can’t answer What is a woman? And I find it relevant in the context of cancel culture, the woke mind virus and the recent events in SSE. So I post it here
22 year old woman, 5 years in medical school (one of the best uni in her country) Ready to start intern, want to become a gynecologist
She is in my extended family, is from a Latin American country and will certainly never read this. Anyway, I am not using my usual nick name for this post to avoid any problems.
It all started when we talked about a well known transwoman in her country who look like a caricature of woman, huge fake boobs, heavy make up, lots of tattoos………… and a really dark voice
I showed her a video about this trans women and asked: Have you heard about her or him, I mean, this transwomen. She didn’t. What do you think of her or his appearance? She looked confused, but said: but he is a man……..? ………….After this first conversation, several days after, I thought, maybe she is not bitten by the woke mind virus as so many young. So I decided to asked my What is a woman question
Me: You are a woman, right. But what is a woman and a man? How would you defines these term as a medical student, ready to do your intern
Looking confused at me and said XX ?…….. or are you thinking about gender?
Me: Not gender, biological sex
She: (looking very uncomfortable): OK?
Me: chromosomes, yes XX are genetic woman.
She: yes?
Me: but just try to think about the question: “What is woman” You are a medical doctor and I believe this is important to think about
She: looking completely lost. Started to feel sorry for her.
Me: OK, you know where I am going with this, right.
She: Confused: eeeeh! I don’t know…………gender?
Me : Just try to answer the question: what is a woman.
She, reluctant: I don’t know……..looking like she was going to cry
Me: I said: I think I understand why you won’t answer, but I won’t ask more. But you should think about it.
As I almost felt like I harassed her, I stopped and let her in peace and started to talked about other thing hoping I did not offend her too much, but after a while she looked like her normal self again.
This was a shocking event for me. The girl started medical school at 17, she is highly intelligent. Religious background, was a creationist as a very bright teenager. Now, after 5 years in medical school I know she is less religious, but 5 years in medical school has certainly shaped her way of thinking, but in a way I find concerning