Category: scientists behaving badly

The exchange of letters to the tri-Societies continues; they largely concede our points

March 7, 2025 • 9:30 am

On March 2, 125 scientists and people affiliated with biology (from 18 countries) signed a letter to the presidents of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN), and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB) See my post about this here.

Our letter and signatures, resulting largely from the effort of Luana Maroja of Williams College, was written to object to the three societies’ previously published claim that biological sex in all species (not just humans) was some sort of multidimensional social construct that was, above all, NOT binary. Here’s one paragraph from their letter, dated February 5, 2025 and addressed to President Trump and “Members of the U.S. Congress.”

Scientific consensus defines sex in humans as a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex. Accordingly, sex (and gendered expression) is not a binary trait. While some aspects of sex are bimodal, variation along the continuum of male to female is well documented in humans through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genetic composition at conception does not define one’s identity. Rather, sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.

I can’t resist pointing out that the “lived identity” part has nothing to do with biological sex, but shows more than anything the ideological purposes of this letter.

Although these views were presented as a “scientific consensus”, the societies did not poll their members. Rather, I gather that they consulted their executive boards and decided that this was a good way to signal their virtue—even if involved distorting biology.  Their “multidimensional, multivariate” concept of sex, which incorporates information from a number of disparate traits, is in sharp contrast with what most biologists see as the definition of sex: a binary trait in all animals and plants that is based solely on whether they have the reproductive apparatus to produce large versus small gametes.  As Richard Dawkins has explained, the latter gamete-based “Universal Biological Definition” (UBD) of sex has the advantage that, yes, it’s universal (every plant and animal species has only two types of gametes), and it’s also explanatory, essential for understanding stuff like natural selection and sexual dimorphism. The multidimensional definition is neither universal nor explanatory.

The Tri-Societies “definition”—which isn’t really a definition—gives us no way to answer the two questions, “Well, how do you tell what sex a person/animal/plant really is?” and “How many sexes are there, then?” It’s a useless construct foisted on the public to show solidarity with those people who don’t identify with one of the two biological sexes. (I repeat again that it’s a description of nature, not a a prescription about how people should be treated.) But we felt that such a letter needed to be sent to show that by no means do all biologists agree on a multivariate definite of sex.

Our first letter (identical, but with only 23 signatures) was never answered, but this time we asked for a response and got one, signed by all three Presidents.  I can’t reprint it because we didn’t ask for permission, but some of its gist is in the response below from Luana. I will say that they admitted that they think they’re in close agreement with us (I am not so sure!), that their letter wasn’t properly phrased, that some of our differences come from different semantic interpretations of words like “binary” and “continuum”(nope), and that they didn’t send the letter anyway because a federal judge changed the Executive Order on sex (this didn’t affect our criticisms). At any rate, the tri-Societies letter is on hold because the organizations are now concerned with more serious threats from the Trump Administration, like science funding.

While I can’t reveal all the points they made, I can say that I see this largely as a victory for reason, as although the letter is still up at the link (they really should remove it and inform the members of the Societies), it wasn’t ever sent and they admit that it has several deficiencies. However, since they do admit those deficiencies, they really should take the letter down because it misrepresents biological reality as well the views of many–perhaps most–evolutionists. (You can also find the letter archived here).

At any rate, the Societies’ letter was sent to all 125 signers, some of whom read this website and are able to comment on the response. In the meantime, yesterday Luana sent the letter below to the Societies (quoted with permission).  Given that the Societies admit the letter was misleading and yet it’s still on the internet representing what is said to be a “scientific consensus” and not even giving a definition of biological sex, the proper thing to do would involve either taking it down or writing something newer based on a poll of the Societies’ members.

Luana’s letter:

Dear Dan, Jessica and Carol,

Thank you for your response.  We are pleased to hear that the letter has not yet been sent . Is the letter going to be removed from the website and members notified of the change and any future changes?

I am unclear what you mean by “Subsequently a federal judge decided against the Executive Order we were commenting on, and the wording of that EO then changed, rendering our original letter moot.”  I am not aware of such change – the EO is still in place (here). What are you referring to?

Furthermore, subsequent to the Executive Order 14168, the HHS has released a guidance (here) to the U.S. government, external partners, and the public to expand on the sex-based definitions. The HHS guidance changed the definition related to “producing gametes” (at conception) to sex “characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing” eggs (ova) or sperm.

We hope we can indeed find common ground,

Best,
Luana

I end by saying that scientific societies need not be “institutionally neutral” when they are dealing with issues that affect the mission of the societies, as the definition of sex surely does. But what’s not okay is for the societies to distort “scientific consensus” in the interest of ideology. I have no idea if the Presidents of these societies really believe what they said (as Dawkins has pointed out, all three Presidents use a binary notion of sex in their own biological work), but something is deeply wrong when you use one notion of sex in your own science and yet deny that notion when you’re telling politicians what scientists “really believe.”

More censorship of science by political correctness: cousin marriage becomes a taboo topic in the UK

December 16, 2024 • 9:30 am

This new Times of London piece by writer (and former table tennis champion) Matthew Syed describes a new form of “taboo science” that, although normally a topic of discourse and treaching in genetics, has become verboten to discuss: cousin marriage. This is because of wokeness. Click on the screenshot below to see the piece (or find it archived here). I’ll quote it after I explain a bit of genetics.

I’m sure you’ve heard that marriage among relatives is not a good thing, and that the closer the relatedness, the worse it can be. The reason is that relatives carry identical gene forms, and the closer you’re related to your mate, the more identical genes you share.  For instance, my sister and I share half our genes, which means that if you single out one of the two gene copies I have at a given DNA site (“locus”), the chance that my sister has that identical copy is 1/2, or 50%.  This is expressed as a “coefficient of relatedness,” which in this case is 0.5. It’s the same for me and either of my parents, or any of my offspring (if I had any). Identical twins, being genetically the same at every locus, have a coefficient of relatedness of one.

Because of the dilution effect of marrying someone unrelated, my coefficient of relatedness to any of my grandparents is 0.25, and you can probably figure out that my coefficient of relatedness to any of my first cousins (say the daughter of my mother’s brother) is 1/8, or 0.125. That’s because I carry half the genes of my mother, a quarter of the genes of my mother’s brother, and thus an eighth of the genes of my mother’s brother’s offspring.

What this means for medical genetics is that because each human carries a certain proportion of deleterious recessive genes (that is, genes that have a very bad effect, but only when an individual carries two copies), there is a chance that such genes might come together in those two copies when relatives marry.  Because nearly all these genes are normally present in only one copy, we don’t get the genetic disease, but if two copies appear in a mating between relatives, that offspring will show the bad trait. (An example of such genes are sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease, the former more common in West African blacks, the latter in Ashkenazi Jews. But there are many, many deleterious recessive genes, whose frequencies are kept low by natural selection against the few people unlucky enough to get two copies.)

Since most of us carry some really bad disease-causing genes, but in single copies (the average number is 1-2), if we marry a relative the chances that those genes can appear in two copies, producing a sick or dead offspring, increases. For example, if I carry a gene for Tay-Sachs disease, the chance that my sister would have the gene copy would be 50%, and if that were to be the case, if we mated the chance that the offspring would get both copies of the gene would be 1/4.  Thus for every bad recessive gene a person has (and most of us have one or two) incest with a sibling would give a probability of 12.5% that our offspring would get the genetic disease. This is why incest is prohibited: it produces an inordinately high proportion of offspring with genetic diseases or homozygosity for rare genes that have milder deleterious conditions.

The chances are lower for first-cousin marriages because first cousins share fewer gene copies in general.  Although it’s generally seen as bad to marry a first cousin, if the practice hasn’t been going on in your lineage for a long time, the harmfulness of such marriages isn’t so great. To quote Wikipedia:

Opinions vary widely as to the merits of the practice. Children of first-cousin marriages have a 4-6% risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders compared to the 3% of the children of totally unrelated parents. A study indicated that between 1800 and 1965 in Iceland, more children and grandchildren were produced from marriages between third or fourth cousins (people with common great-great- or great-great-great-grandparents) than from other degrees of separation. [JAC: Thus not just child mortality can be lowered, but also fertility, perhaps because of early miscarriages.]

. . . . In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points above the average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40. In terms of mortality, a 1994 study found a mean excess pre-reproductive mortality rate of 4.4%,  while another study published in 2009 suggests the rate may be closer to 3.5%.  Put differently, a single first-cousin marriage entails a similar increased risk of birth defects and mortality as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 rather than at 30.

This is still stuff you need to know if you’re contemplating marrying a cousin, especially if you’re in an ethnic group with a high frequency of certain genetic diseases. That’s why we have genetic counseling. First cousins still need to know that the risk of having a genetically diseased child could be 50-100% greater than for nonrelated couples.  It’s still low, but could affect one’s decision  And if you are, for example, an Ashkenazi Jew, it’s best for both partners to get genetically tested, for if neither carries the Tay-Sachs gene, they can go ahead and reproduce like rabbits. If only one carries the gene, they can still go ahead without worry, though that gene will still be passed on in single form to half their offspring, who will be “carriers.”

Given the low relative risk of having kids with your first cousin, it’s still curious that such marriages are widely prohibited. Again from Wikipedia:

In some jurisdictions, cousin marriage is legally prohibited: for example, first-cousin marriage in China, North Korea, South Korea, the Philippines, for Hindus in some jurisdictions of India, some countries in the Balkans, and 30 out of the 50 U.S. states. It is criminalized in 8 states in the US, the only jurisdictions in the world to do so. The laws of many jurisdictions set out the degree of consanguinity prohibited among sexual relations and marriage parties. Supporters of cousin marriage where it is banned may view the prohibition as discrimination, while opponents may appeal to moral or other arguments.

There’s a reason to prohibit first-cousin marriages in some groups, though, and I’ll explain this below.

This kind of stuff has been taught for decades in genetics classes.  There should be no taboo about talking about why brother-sister or first-cousin matings are frowned upon. But it has recently become taboo to discuss, as you can see from the article above. The reason is that some communities keep mating with their relatives generation after generation, and that considerably increases the chances that two relatives who mate within that community will have a genetically diseased offspring (this “inbreeding” raises the frequency of some genes that cause genetic disease, which is why the Amish and Ashlenazi Jews happen to have high frequencies of different genetic diseases.  Here’s one more paragraph from the Wikipedia article on “cousin marriage”:

After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.

The higher the frequency of deleterious recessive genes, the greater the relative risk of first-cousin matings compared to matings between unrelated people, and in the Pakistani community the frequencyu of deleterious recessive genes have been increased by inbreeding (“consanguineous mating”). Sometimes it can be hundreds of times higher!

Thus it becomes even more imperative to discuss the dangers of “consanguineous” matings (matings with relatives) with members of such communities. Sadly, the opposite has occurred. Because one of the communities that do this is in fact Pakistani (I’m not sure if other Muslim national groups do the same), the taboo with dissing people of color has now made it off limits to talk about cousin marriages. I quote from the Times article. Note that Syed’s father was a Pakistani immigrant to the UK.

Let me start by telling you about Dr Patrick Nash, a somewhat shy legal academic who in 2017 came across an intriguing finding. He noticed that much of the “extremism” emanating from Pakistani communities seemed to have a “clan” component. The perpetrators were linked not just through ideology or religion but by family ties stretching through generations. He noticed something else too: these communities were cemented together by cousin marriage, a common practice in Pakistani culture. By marrying within small, tightknit groups, they ensure everything is kept within the baradari, or brotherhood — property, secrets, loyalty — binding them closer together while sequestering them from wider society.

At this point Dr Nash hadn’t come to understand the genetic risks, the patriarchal oppression and the bloc voting, nor the growing evidence that rates of cousin marriage strongly correlate with corruption and poverty, but — like any good scholar — he thought he’d do a bit more digging.

But then something odd happened: several academics invited him to the pub for a “drink and chat”. He thought nothing of it, but it turned out to be an informal tribunal. “It was put to me that I might consider another line of inquiry that would be more ‘culturally sensitive’, less likely to provide ‘ammo for the right’ and less likely to ‘make life more difficult for myself’ as a junior, untenured academic,” he told me. “It was sinister.”

It was not just sinister, but woke, with the wokeness working to silence scientific discourse. And, as Syed discovered, the wokeness spread quickly. I’ve bolded the most arrant example of scientific censorship.

I quickly discovered that researchers wouldn’t return emails or calls. When I got through to one geneticist, he said: “I can’t go there.” It was like hitting a succession of ever-higher brick walls. I then came across evidence that scientists examining the UK Biobank had found that levels of incest (father-daughter, siblings etc) were significantly higher in the British Pakistani community than the wider population. This was a disturbing finding, possibly indicating abuse of a shocking kind. But the paper was never published, disappearing into what I can only describe as an Orwellian memory hole. When I approached the researchers, they were not prepared to talk on the record. One said that he feared he might not be able to bring up his children if he whispered the truth and lost his job as a result. It was like something out of Kafka.

What I hope you are gleaning from all this is how scientific inquiry is being distorted and suppressed out of an almost crippling fear of offending cultural sensitivities; how information vital to the public interest is being censored out of concern that it might be prejudicial to the “customs” of immigrant communities. It is a phenomenon that directly parallels the Rotherham scandal, in which young girls suffering horrific abuse at the hands of mainly Pakistani gangs were betrayed by the police and social services, which refused to investigate for fear of appearing racist.

Finally, there’s this:

But the other striking aspect of the debate was the sinister influence of scientific malpractice. MPs on all sides kept referring to the genetic risks of cousin marriage as “double” those of relationships between unrelated couples. This “fact” is endemic throughout the media, from the BBC to The Telegraph, and for good reason: journalists trust what scientists tell them. But the stat isn’t true — indeed, it’s absurd. When inbreeding persists through generations (when cousins get married who are themselves the children of cousins), the risks are far higher, which is why British Pakistanis account for 3.4 per cent of births nationwide but 30 per cent of recessive gene disorders, consanguineous relationships are the cause of one in five child deaths in Redbridge and the NHS hires staff specifically to deal with these afflictions.

And that, as Syed says, raises the chances of genetic defects in offspring of Pakistani-Pakistani matings far above those of matings of two people from non-Pakistani communities who aren’t part of a group that has mated consanguineously for generations.

What we see here is one more instance of scientific truth (like the sex binary) being suppressed because it supposedly demonizes a minority group.  But no good can come of such taboos. For one thing, the data don’t show that Pakistani people are morally worse than other people; they simply have a cultural custom that results in more child mortality.  Isn’t that worth spreading to both them and to genetic counselors? For another thing, it takes the whole topic of consanguineous matings off the table for discussion, which is both socially and scientifically harmful.  This kind of censorship is not new to me, as there are lots of examples, but Syed just grasped it:

I realised something else too. I was a victim of racism growing up, ostracised for long periods at school for the colour of my skin, which is why I’ve spent my life fighting the bigotry of the hard right. But I now believe the soft bigotry of the left is more insidious. After all, you can see and challenge a thug using the P-word, but how to combat the subtler bias that has seeped into our institutions? Ponder the scientists who, with the terrible certainty of their own virtue, played down the risks of cousin marriage, thereby denying the very community they presume to help crucial information; the researchers who concealed information on incest to “protect” minorities, thereby condemning the most vulnerable to sickening abuse.

The way to combat the bias is to tell the scientific truth and then add that the scientific truth doesn’t carry any moral or ideological implications. The taboo we see comes from bigots: in this case, the bigots of the left who don’t think that people, including Pakistanis, can handle the truth.

In this case there are lives that can be saved by telling the truth, but the “soft bigotry” of the left prevents that. It is, in effect, killing babies.

********

A few relevant tweets from Luana Maroja. Note that the first one uses a picture of a family that is NOT Pakistani!

This must be the paper that wasn’t allowed to be published (see above). The tweet has apparently been deleted.

Bonkers paper of the year

December 3, 2024 • 11:00 am

This paper in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (click title below to read, or find the pdf here) is a strong contender for Bonkers Paper of the Year. The author, Ewelina Jarosz, is a Polish professor from Kraków—not a scientist, but an assistant professor of Media and Cultural Studies (of course).

Ewelina Jarosz

  • University of the National Education Commission, Krakow; Department of Media and Cultural Reseach, Kraków, małopolskie, Poland

Below is the abstract, which promotes “hydrosexuality” and denigrates “settler science”. If you had a shot of tequila for every buzzword in this abstract, you’d be stinking drunk at the end:

The article aims to transform narratives surrounding Utah’s Great Salt Lake, often referred to as “America’s Dead Sea,” by reimagining how brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana) are perceived in science, culture, and art. It introduces the concept of hydrosexuality to bridge these realms, thereby enriching feminist blue posthumanities and feminist biology through art-based practices and queer advocacy. By navigating the environmental narrative of the GSL, the hydrosexual perspective challenges settler science by exploring the connections between the reproductive system of brine shrimp and the economy, ecology and culture. The article provides a framework for integrative cultural analysis that bolsters arguments about the multilayered exploitation of the lake and amplifies voices that recognize the brine shrimp as vital to the survival of multiple species and to the GSL as a unique ecosystem. Furthermore, this cultural analysis draws inspiration from low trophic theory and Queer Death Studies. This multifaceted approach is exemplified by two case studies in the arts, which gradually alter white humans’ perceptions and understandings of the brine shrimp, helping to reimagine the GSL in the context of rapid climate change.

If you want an analysis of what the paper actually says, read and give credit to Colin Wright, who read it and analyzed it on his site Reality’s Last Stand (click below to read):

Colin’s introduction (I can’t believe he read the entire paper, apparently without gastric distress, but he did):

In the annals of academic absurdity, there are moments that make even seasoned critics pause in awe. “Loving the Brine Shrimp: Exploring Queer Feminist Blue Posthumanities to Reimagine the ‘America’s Dead Sea’” is one such moment. This is not a parody—though it reads like one—but a “serious” paper, or so the author insists. In what is best described as a surrealist love letter to brine shrimp, the author, Ewelina Jarosz (she/they), wades through a soup of critical theory, environmental activism, and performance art, asking the reader to reconsider their relationship with brine shrimp—not as mere crustaceans but as symbols of queer resilience, ecological ethics, and, somehow, hydrosexual love.

This paper is part of a growing tradition of postmodern scholarship that prioritizes ideological signaling over intellectual rigor. Following in the footsteps of infamous works like the 2016 “Feminist Glaciology” paper—which posited that glaciers are gendered—“Loving the Brine Shrimp” sets a new standard for academic ridiculousness. Its culmination in a cyber wedding to augmented reality brine shrimp makes feminist glaciers seem like a grounded scientific pursuit by comparison. But before we arrive at the nuptial climax, let’s examine how this spectacle unfolds.

There was performance art involved: a marriage of two Polish academics to brine shrimp at the Great Salt Lake of Utah:

The paper reached peak woke in a section titled “Loving the Brine Shrimp,” which recounts a performance art piece called Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp. This event, staged on the receding shores of the Great Salt Lake, involved artists, scientists, and augmented reality brine shrimp. Participants made vows to the crustaceans, marched in a procession, and capped it off with a communal bath in the lake. The author describes this as “making love to the lake,” a phrase that may haunt frequent swimmers of the Great Salt Lake for the rest of their lives.

Here’s a photo and article found by Malgorzata at the right-wing website David Horowitz’s The Front Page. Just read it for the lolz:

On September 14, 2021, two Polish female professors headed to the Great Salt Lake in Utah to marry some brine shrimp in an ecosexual wedding.

Presided over by Bonnie Baxter PhD, a biology professor at Westminster University in nearby Salt Lake City, the two Polish professor brides in clinging wedding dresses approached holding hands and together with the rest of the wedding party which included a sexologist and Elizabeth Stephens, the chair of UC Santa Cruz’s Art Department, who helped create the ‘Ecosexual’ movement, went into the lake to marry the shrimp through an exchange of psychic vows.

The 12-minute video of the wedding vows and the postnuptial swim in the lake, “Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp”, can (and must) be seen at Colin’s website.  

One thing is clear: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics lacks even a scintilla of academic rigor. In fact, when the journal publishes a paper, replete with buzzwords, that’s indistinguishable from the “hoax papers” of Alan Sokal or of Boghossian, Pluckrose, and Lindsay, you know that something has gone badly wrong with scholarship. Is there any contribution to knowledge here? I can’t detect any.

Yes, it’s all hilarious, but only in the sense that academics become lunatics in their effort to promulgate social justice, or, in this case, “environmental justice.” As Colin says at the end of his herculean reading of the paper:

In an era where intellectual rigor often takes a backseat to performative absurdity, it’s important to keep a sense of humor about the bizarre trajectory of academic publishing. After all, what else can we do when purportedly serious scholars convene weddings for brine shrimp or ascribe nonbinary identities to water?

Alas, these are the times we live in.

h/t: Ann

In a jeremiad that scientists should become political activists, Agustín Fuentes conflates science with scientists

November 25, 2024 • 11:00 am

Agustín Fuentes is a biological anthropologist at Princeton University, and has appeared in these pages more than a couple of times, for he is also somewhat of a “progressive activist” who, for example, has indicted Darwin for being a racist and espoused the view that sex is non-binary (see video below).   In the latest issue of Science, he justifies his activism, asserting that scientists should be political and ideological activists because this helps us fight what he sees as an encroaching attack on science that will accompany the Trump administration.

But Fuentes’s short letter is deeply confusing, for it conflates the idea of scientists being activists with science itself being activist. I’ll give some quotes to show that conflation, and then give my disagreement with the ideas that science should be activist, as well some reservations with the notion that it’s generally good for scientists to be activists. Click below to read the letter, ironically classified under “expert voices”:

First Fuentes implies that his promotion of activism in science and among scientists in this piece came explicitly because of the threat he sees posed by the Trump administration:

Science, both teaching and doing, is under attack. The recent US presidential election of a person and platform with anti-science bias exemplifies this.

That itself is a problem, as it’s not going to win over half of America (see below).

But to some extent I agree with this, for it certainly looks as scientific truth will be endangered by Trump and, especially, his appointments in the area of public health and science.

Certainly scientists who see their field as endangered are entitled to speak out as individuals against stuff like climate-change denial, vaccine denialism, and opposition to GMOs and nuclear energy.  When politicians or other scientists present misleading data to support a political  position, it is scientists who know the data to correct the record. After all, that is one of the great benefits of science: it is self-correcting.

But of course correcting the record, for example giving data showing that nuclear energy can replace fossil fuels, is not the same things as saying okay, we have to replace fossil fuels with nuclear energy now.  For fixing problems often requires expertise beyond the ambit of scientists: things like political savvy, economic and practical considerations, and so on. Ergo, accepting a scientific argument is not always identical to saying that we must go ahead and fix society according to the “winning” scientific assertion, for in the long run such fixes may be more harmful than helpful. (Note: I am not saying we should keep using fossil fuels as much as we do: this is just an example!)

But I digress. I want to show how Fuentes conflates the activism of scientists as individuals with the activism of science as an institution, something he does throughout the letter (bolding is mine):

Whether science is political, and if it should be, is an age-old debate. Some assert that scientific institutions and scientists themselves should seek to remain apolitical, or at least present a face of political neutrality. Others argue that such isolation is both impossible and unnecessary, that scientists are and should be in the political fray.

Notice that he conflates scientists with scientific institutions, the latter including scientific organizations, journals, and granting institutions.

Here’s more:

The Editor-in-Chief of Science recently wrote that although science has always been political, it “thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.” Given the current political reality and the expansion of attacks on science, it is time for scientists to be more effective, forceful, and vociferous as their own political advocates.

Who is supposed to be political here—science itself or scientists?  It’s clear that he means scientists, but also throws “science” into the mix as he does in the last sentence of the excerpt below. It’s also clear that the activism he wants from scientists is progressive left-wing activism, presumably of the kind that Fuentes himself has promoted in his previous articles. I don’t think he’s calling for right-wing scientists to be activists!

There are many taking vocal stances asserting key scientific findings and practices in the face of attacks by anti-science forces. Most scientists are familiar with the prominent cases of Anthony Fauci or Peter Hotez in public health, and of Michael Mann in climate science. But for every one of the high-profile examples, there are other, less publicly known attacks on scientists and science educators working in public spheres, social media, and the classroom. These attacks are often especially intense when the scientists are also women, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color), queer, or from other marginalized groups. The increasingly anti-science political ecosystem creates a dire need for science to be proactive, not only reactive.

More conflation:

If one’s job, salary, research support, etc. are at risk, it is not surprising that one may not want to “stick their neck out.” And such threats will grow in the US under the incoming administration. There also remains some prominent fear of the term “political” in the scientific community, as if being political represents a bad thing or something that diminishes the value of science or the scientist.

Finally, here’s Fuentes’s final pronouncement that science itself should become a vehicle for promoting a social mission, almost certainly the “progressive mission of the left”:

As the social scientists Fernando Tormos-Aponte, Scott Frickel, and John Parker discovered in a survey just after the 2020 US elections, for many scientists “political advocacy is no longer anathema to scientific research, but should be embraced as a central aspect of science’s social mission.” This is even more true here at the end of 2024.

Once again this conflates what scientists should do with how we conceive of the “social mission of science”, that is, we should change our view of science to make activism a part of it.

Fuentes doesn’t seem to realize, as we know from statistics about the public’s view of science and of universities, that there is indeed a danger to scientists and to science itself from scientists taking stands in particular venues, like journals or professional societies. We know that when Nature endorsed Joe Biden for President in 2020, it not only did not convince more people to vote for him, but reduced the credibility of the journal, and of science itself, in the eyes of readers. When Scientific American became activist, publishing article after article taking “progressive” stands, including two misguided pieces by Fuentes himself, it lost credibility in the eyes of many and, in the end, the editor-in-chief left the journal, probably because she had no choice.  What was the cause of the final rupture between the magazine and the editor? Her attacks on Bluesky against supporters of Trump.

Finally, we know that public trust in science among both Democrats and Republicans has declined significantly in the last decade, and there’s been an even steeper drop in public confidence in colleges and universities.

Now of course you’ve surely said to yourself, “But there is no impersonal ‘science’ that takes stands. It must be the scientists themselves who do.” And of course that’s correct.  But what I am trying say is that there are ways and ways of scientists being activists, and some of them are useful but others are not. My points are below:

a.) Scientists should use their recognized expertise to correct false arguments that affect society. For example, if vaccines are effective and we have data on their efficacy, and we also have data that they don’t cause autism, we should say so.  But arguments are more effective when the scientists making them are experts in the area, which leads to the next point:

b.) Scientists should shy away from making scientific arguments outside their sphere of expertise. A prime example of this is evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, who has severely hurt his own reputation by making statements about covid vaccines and touting the efficacy of ivermectin as both a treatment for and preventive of Covid.  Weinstein did not know what he was talking about, and had no good data to back up his claims. He was dead wrong, but of course people used his statements to justify using horse de-wormer for their virus infection. Such statements may well harm or even kill people.

c.) Scientists should not make arguments that they say are scientific if they are imbued with ideology. This only serves to turn off a public who may know better. Luana and I deal with six of these arguments in the paper by me and Luana Maroja in Skeptical Inquirer, including rejection of the sex binary, claims that there are no evolved differences between males and females, and the idea that indigenous knowledge should be considered coequal with modern science. Ideology based arguments in these areas are misleading and injurious to the public understanding of science.

d.) “Science” itself should not be seen as incorporating activism as a necessary component.  Sure, scientists can use their knowledge to cure diseases like Covid, or create vaccines to fight polio. If you see that as “activism”, well, it’s not a form of activism that is very injurious, since nobody wants those diseases around. However, there will still be opposition to vaccination, and part of that, for covid, was due to scientists themselves either not being straightforward with data (not good) or changing their recommendations based on changing understanding of the virus and its transmission (a normal party of science).

Here are some forms of activism that can be seen as part of science itself and should be avoided:

1.) Scientific journals, magazines, or societies making ideological statements (viz. Lancet, the Society for the Study of Evolution. etc. saying that sex is a spectrum)

2.) Scientific organizations using ideology to dispense scientific funding, for example using criteria other than merit to advance “equity”.

3.) Scientists claiming the authority of science when advancing what is are biased and ideological views (see my paper with Luana).

4.) Scientists hiring other scientists or accepting graduate students based on criteria other than merit (ee #2).

In general, science gets eroded when its practitioners elevate criteria other than merit, including ethnicity, gender, or Marxist beliefs in human malleability.

Now all of these, in my view, have the potential to damage science itself, as well as to damage universities, in which science education plays a large part.  When people see the criteria above violated, they become more anti-science and more anti-university. They are less willing to support science or to give their kids (or themselves) higher education.

It is largely the ideological neutrality of “science itself”, as ideally instantiated in science departments, science journals, granting agencies, and science societies and organizations, that has kept the reputation of science unsullied.  But now it is getting sullied, and sullied from both the right and left. One of the reasons for this is the very activism that Fuentes wants so badly.

As I said, scientists have an important role to play in improving society, but that role should, as far as possible, be limited to ensuring that the data fed into societal arguments be as accurate as possible. When scientists go beyond that, infusing their data with ideology, the potential for harm to their brand is very real.  This doesn’t mean that scientists shouldn’t have free speech, for of course they should and they do.  What it means is that unless they speak carefully, and avoid a partisan bias, they risk the reputation of the very fields they love.

In the five-minute video below we see Fuentes being an ideologue while at the same time arguing that science shouldn’t “become ideology”.  He mischaracterizes atheism as saying ‘I know for sure there is no god,”  argues that evolutionary biology is imbued with racism and sexism, and maintains that the sex binary “is not the best way to characterize humans.” Yes, humans are messy and vary in their gender, but the sex binary, as I’ve argued, applies as much to humans as it does to any other animal. There are exactly two sexes, and there are no more than two sexes. Yes, Dr. Fuentes, the world is “complex and messy”, but I don’t buy your claim that the sex binary itself somehow misrepresents or distorts our knowledge of variation in human behavior or culture. After all, the sex binary is just a definition, and one that has the advantage of holding universally in all animals and vascular plants. It has nothing to say about culture or variation in behavior.

From the YouTube notes:

This interview is an episode from ‪@The-Well‬, our publication about ideas that inspire a life well-lived, created with the ‪@JohnTempletonFoundation‬.

Templeton! Wouldn’t you know it?

h/t: Anna and Luana, my partners in crime

The unscientific heterodoxy of Bret Weinstein

September 29, 2024 • 11:40 am

Bret Weinstein became famous because of the 2017 Evergreen  State brouhaha, and I was firmly on his side on that one. Eventually he became so demonized that he had to leave the College, and since then has found a niche as a heterodox podcaster. But it’s been heterodoxy of the wrong stripe, including pushing Ivermectin as an anti-covid preventive and cure, warning against covid-shots, and now lapsing into bizarre conspiracy theories.

The criticism of Weinstein’s new heterodoxy is detailed in, of all places, a McGill University post on the University’s “Office for Science and Society”, calling him a “would-be Galileo” (i.e., someone who thinks he’s discerned important truths about the world but hasn’t really done so).  I’ve followed Weinstein’s career a bit, a career that I see as inimical to rational thinking despite his popularity (he has 1.1 million followers on “X” and appeared on the Joe Rogan Show).

Jonathan Jarry agrees with me, and you can read his article on Weinstein site by clicking the headline below. The title is, even by my lights, a bit mean:

It turns out that, to my dismay, Weinstein is still pushing Ivermectin for covid and questioning the efficacy of other covid treatments, including vaccines. I’ll quote the article in indented sections:

Galileo has many heirs. I don’t mean biological descendants; rather, some intellectuals see Galileo’s face in the mirror staring back at them. Freed from the shackles of academia (or simply kicked out of their university), they find a lucrative niche for themselves, telling their enraptured fans that, just like Galileo, they have an Earth-shattering theory… and a mysterious “they”don’t want you to know about it.

Bret Weinstein is a name you might be familiar with. An evolutionary biologist, now self-titled “professor in exile,” he hosts The DarkHorse podcast with his wife, fellow evolutionary biologist Heather Heying. The podcast has nearly half a million subscribers on YouTube alone and has featured high-profile guests like Russell Brand, Sam Harris, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Weinstein has himself guested on The Joe Rogan Experience, seemingly the largest podcast in the world. And while his calm tone of voice may denote sound judgment, Weinstein has become an über-conspiracy theorist, to the point where he believes the Powers That Be are crafting fake conspiracies specifically to make him look stupid.

Being Galileo is hard, but someone has to do it.

The ivermectin stuff, which abides:

But what made Weinstein particularly relevant in the eyes of the average science news consumer was his appearance on an “emergency podcast” of The Joe Rogan Experience, which in terms of sheer viewership eclipses the so-called mainstream media. Sitting next to Dr. Pierre Kory, Weinstein explained to Rogan that ivermectin worked against COVID-19 and that the vaccines were dangerous. (This was the exact opposite of reality.) Importantly, Weinstein painted himself as part of a group of “heretics,” independent of the structures controlling others, hence free to analyze the data accurately and report on it without being muzzled. He became one of the leading figures of the pro-ivermectin contingent during the pandemic.

To this day, Weinstein still believes in the effectiveness of this anti-parasitic drug in preventing and treating COVID-19, despite the clear evidence that it does not do so. On the September 17th, 2024 episode of their DarkHorse podcast, Weinstein and Heying double down on their pseudoscientific perspective on the pandemic: ventilators were “very negative” and “not necessary” for COVID; ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are the “best drugs” against the virus; and it appears we are facing a “pandemic of the vaccinated.”

Jarry argues that Weinstein’s popularity rests largely not only on his conspiracy theories (see below), but on his calm demeanor and also on the fact that he often takes the “JAQ” (“just asking questions”) approach as a way of really pushing his own views.

More covid stuff along with HIV and polio:

Over years of pumping out incredibly long, weekly podcast episodes, Weinstein and Heying have “hypothesized” a number of truly staggering things, both in the sciences and outside of them.

Weinstein wonders if the alleged “noisiness” of COVID diagnostic tests might be a feature not a bug, as it allows someone to claim anything at any moment. He tells Joe Rogan that the evidence for the HIV virus not causing AIDS is “surprisingly compelling.” Similarly, the poliovirus might not cause polio but might simply be a “fellow traveller” in people who have the disease, which is actually caused by pesticides. Also, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might be Fidel Castro’s son (“the evidence seems kinda good,” says Heying before dismissing its relevance) and he is also gay (“this is now officially known,” says her husband).

This denialism of facts and reality can easily lead you into conspiracy territory: how else to explain that you are right but everyone around you is wrong?

Indeed, we must now confront the Goliath in the room.

“Goliath” is the name Weinstein gives to what he sees is a massive and nefarious worldwide conspiracy aimed at him in particular:

Some conspiracy theorists fret over an alleged “deep state.” For others, it’s the Bildenberg Group, or the World Economic Forum at Davos, or a Satanic cabal, or history’s classic villain: the Jews. For Weinstein, it’s Goliath.

Goliath is the name he gives to the shadowy powers conspiring against the world and against Weinstein personally. The Israel-Palestine conflict unfurling now? That’s Goliath trying to bury the voices of the COVID dissidents like Weinstein under 24/7 news coverage of a world event. He has also hinted at Goliath trying to get him to die by suicide. One day, a browser window allegedly appeared on Weinstein’s phone with a DuckDuckGo search engine page with the search bar containing the word “suicide.” Weinstein believes this might have been a threat, because he and his wife have been “a sticky wicket” for Goliath.

Real conspiracy theories aren’t enough for Weinstein and Heying, however. They must be on their toes for fake conspiracy theories manufactured by Goliath to make them appear foolish. “Traps abound” as Weinstein likes to remind his listeners, and there are psy-ops (or psychological operations designed to influence the population’s attitudes) everywhere. That story about Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio? “Very believable,” Weinstein comments, but if it turns out there is no merit to this story, it was an irresistible trap, possibly set by Goliath, to discredit the people who will believe in disinformation. Indeed, Goliath is apparently trying to drive a wedge between Weinstein and his friends, a secret strategy he calls the coalition slicer-dicer. “It could be next-level chess by Goliath,” he calmly states.

Still with me?

Throughout all of this, Weinstein believes his thinking is scientific in nature, but it is not. . .

The author notes several other off-the-rails assertions of Weinstein (e.g., lab mice can’t be used for drug testing because their telomeres are too long), and then goes into a critique of Weinstein’s equally famous brother, Eric, saying that Eric’s “scientific” theories are also criticized (e.g, covid was due to Earth’s shifting magnetic fields).  The article finishes up by listing some of the questionable sponsors of Bret Weinstein’s podcast (e.g., AMRA, which sells cow colostrum as a palliative for leaky gut syndrome).

There’s one final note:

No longer satisfied with pontificating about how everything can be seen through an evolutionary lens, Bret Weinstein is now the co-founder of the Star-Wars-inflected Rescue the Republic. This weekend, they are meeting in Washington, D.C.—peacefully, Weinstein reminds us on his podcast—to give voice to their various antiestablishment grievances. They will be joined by similarly minded contrarians, such as Jordan Peterson, Pierre Kory, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Well, I don’t know much about Eric Weinstein, though I know some readers here, do. I have followed Bret to some extent, though, and all i can say is this: don’t trust anything that comes out of his mouth, be it about Covid, Ivermectin, or Goliath. Caveat emptor. 

h/t: Ginger K.

More ideology in science: DEI infects the process for handing out scientific grants

July 22, 2024 • 9:40 am

I held the same National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant for about 30 years, renewing it under a competitive process every three years. It was onerous (I took six months to write each renewal application), but at least you could be sure that the proposals were judged on merit. Sure, you had to check a box with your “race” (the NIH considers that a social construct), but that was for record-keeping purposes only  and, during the times I sat in on evaluation committees, ethnicity and identity were never even discussed when ranking proposals.

That has now changed, not only with the National Institutes of Health, but with all the major funding agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  All of these agencies, though legally forbidden to take into account the ethnicity of those who apply for grants, or to boost those of minority status, have found ways around that restriction, adhering to today’s DEI Zeitgeist.  This of course devalues scientific merit in proposals—a dangerous strategy if the aim of science funding is to promote the understanding of nature (with health benefits to humans in the case of the NIH). Giving grants based on minority status rather than merit also reduces the public’s trust in science.  The situation has become so fraught that I am positively elated that I no longer have to write grants, as I’m not sure how to write a diversity statement, and am opposed to them in general.

A new paper in SSRN (“Social Science Research Network”) calls attention to the pervasive attempts to circumvent race-based funding in the federal government, and outlines the problems that such attempts produce. You can go to the paper’s website by clicking on the screenshot below, or you can download the pdf here (go to “download without registration” at the upper right).

You’ll probably recognize a couple of names among the authors:

If you want a short take, you see below a summary and preview by Krylov and Tanzman from Heterodox STEM (click headline to read).  But I’ll be citing excerpts from the long paper itself.  It has not escaped my notice that the government’s attempt to circumvent restrictions on race-based funding parallel those now used by universities after the Supreme Court ruled out race-based admissions.

I’ll summarize the paper’s main points, indenting quotes and putting the main points under headers of my devising. All bolding is mine.

What is DEI?

While no reasonable person can oppose the morality of trying to to give every American equal opportunity to become a scientist (and that starts with birth), the mandates that condition federal funding call not for equal opportunity, but for equity—“equal outcomes” so that minoritized groups—not just races, but LGBTQ+, the disabled, women, and anybody said to be disadvantaged because of oppression—are represented in proportion to their occurrence in the general population. Here’s the authors’ construal of DEI as it is actually implemented by the government:

Actual DEI policies do not promote viewpoint diversity, equitable treatment of individuals based on their accomplishments, or equal opportunity for individuals regardless of their identity (e.g., race, sex, ethnicity). It can scarcely be questioned (Krylov and Tanzman, 2024) that DEI programs today are driven by an ideology, an offshoot of Critical Social Justice1 (CSJ) (Pluckrose, 2021; Deichmann 2023). DEI programs elevate the collective above the individual. They group people into categories defined by immutable characteristics (race, sex, etc.) and classify each group as either “privileged” or “victimized,” as “oppressor” or “oppressed.” The goals of DEI programs are to have each group participate in proportion to their fraction of thepopulation in every endeavor of society and to obtain proportionate outcomes from those endeavors. Disproportionate outcomes (with respect to science, such outcomes as publications, funding, citations, salaries, and awards), or disparities, are axiomatically ascribed to systemic factors, such as systemic racism and sexism, without consideration of alternative explanations (Sowell, 2019, 2023). Claims, such as “The presence of disparities is proof of systemic racism” and “Meritocracy is a myth” are propagated widely despite the vagueness of the claims and their lack of support by concrete data. Similarly, tenets that are central to DEI ideology—such as diversity is excellence, diverse teams outperform homogenous teams, and the advancement of women is impeded by biases—lack a robust evidence base, particularly when applied to science (Abbot et al., 2023; Krylov and Tanzman, 2023; Ceci et al., 2021, 2023).

Note that several important claims, including the assertion that underrepresentation of minoritized groups is due to ongoing systemic racism (which would be illegal) and that diverse scientific teams consistently outperform more homogeneous ones. Neither claim is supported by evidence.

My own opinion (and that of the authors; see below) is to give as many people as possible the opportunity to do science, and choose for advancement those who do the best work.  That might not result in equity, but it does allow equal opportunity. I recognize, of course, that we’re a long way from giving different groups equal opportunity, which must begin at or even before birth. But equal opportunity is the only permanent way to solve the problem of disproportional representation in science (or any endeavor). Effecting that will be hard, and requires immense effort, money, and empirical tests of educational systems, but once it’s in place, unequal representation would reflect other things, like behavioral differences or differential preferences among groups.

How do funding agencies employ DEI? This takes place through the use of required statements and plans to enhance diversity that must accompany grant proposals. Here are two examples; the first is from an HIH program:

Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity (NOT-OD-20-031):

The applicant must provide a recruitment plan to enhance diversity. Include outreach strategies and activities designed to recruit prospective participants from diverse backgrounds, e.g., those from groups described in the Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity. Describe the specific efforts to be undertaken by the program and how the proposed plan reflects past experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups.

New applications must include a description of plans to enhance recruitment, including the strategies that will be used to enhance the recruitment of trainees from nationally underrepresented backgrounds and may wish to include data in support of past accomplishments.

Renewal applications must include a detailed account of experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups during the previous funding period, including successful and unsuccessful recruitment strategies. Information should be included on how the proposed plan reflects the program’s past experiences in recruiting individuals from underrepresented groups.

For those individuals who participated in the research education program, the report should include information about the duration of education and aggregate information on the number of individuals who finished the program in good standing. Additional information on the required Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity is available at Frequently Asked Questions: Recruitment Plan to Enhance Diversity (Diversity FAQs).

Applications lacking a diversity recruitment plan will not be reviewed. [Emphasis ours.]

And one from NASA:

The assessment of the Inclusion Plan will be based on […] the extent to which the Inclusion Plan demonstrated awareness of systemic barriers to creating inclusive working environments that are specific to the proposal team. [Emphasis ours.]

But to those of us in science, there are no systemic (codified) barriers to advancement, although of course there is still some racism. But those who make the claim of systemic barriers have to ignore the ways universities are falling all over each other to recruit qualified women and members of minority groups.

Why are these requirements bad for science?  Besides taking up an enormous amount of time confecting such statements, which are surely often deliberately misleading, they are palpably illegal, violating civil rights laws:

These requirements to incorporate DEI into each research proposal are alarming. They constitute compelled speech, they undermine the academic freedom of researchers, they dilute merit-based criteria for funding, they incentivize illegal discriminatory hiring practices, they erode public trust in science, and they contribute to administrative overload. “Diversity,” which is sometimes described as “diverse backgrounds” or “diverse views,” actually refers to select underrepresented identity groups (Honeycutt, 2020; Brint and Frey, 2023; Brint, 2023).

. . .The demand to provide an inclusion plan without evidence that there is a need for one is compelled speech and an intrusion of ideology into the conduct of science. Forcing scientists to “acknowledge” and “show awareness of” systemic racism and “barriers to participation” in their institutions and teams (Nahm and Watkins, 2023), even if none can be documented, misrepresents reality, is an offense to scientists who have worked hard to establish fair and transparent hiring practices in their institutions, and is inconsistent with scientific professional ethics and, indeed, the very vocation of the scientist.

The paragraphs below identify what’s illegal. I’m fairly convinced that these DEI requirements do indeed violate civil-rights laws, and that the only reason they persist—just as DEI requirements for job applications in academia persist—is that nobody has challenged them in the courts. To do so, you need “standing”, that is, you must demonstrate that you have been injured by these requirements. And anybody doing that would be forever demonized in academia, not to mention tied up in legal battles that would last years.

The interaction of DEI with the legal system is troubling. First, the demands that PIs “acknowledge” systemic racism and “barriers to participation” in their institutions (Nahm and Watkins, 2023), and insert land acknowledgements in their scientific publications (NSF, n.d.(b)) raise grave legal concerns. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States strictly forbids compelling people to say things they do not believe are true. The circumstances under which government may condition grants or benefits on attesting that one holds a certain belief (e.g., “acknowledges” the truth to be this or that with respect to a contested matter), though somewhat obscure, are certainly limited (Supreme Court, 2013). At a minimum, government’s engaging in such conditioning on contested questions raises significant civil liberties concerns and is in tension with core First Amendment values.

Second, there are strict laws against discrimination on the basis of race and gender, both at federal and state levels. Thus, invoking DEI explicitly attempts to circumvent existing laws. Any actual “barriers” or “systemic discrimination” can be prosecuted under existing anti-discrimination statutes, following due process.

Third, even more worrying is that successful applications require principal investigators and their home institutions to engage in practices that are likely illegal.  For example, DEI “equity”-based plans for equal gender or racial participation can, in practice, only be implemented by gender- and race-preferential hiring. This is strictly illegal under civil rights employment law (Title VI; Title IX; EEOC, n.d.).

How do funding agencies get around the illegality of this process?

Funding agencies attempt to circumvent the laws prohibiting them from basing funding decisions on race or ethnicity by cloaking DEI requirements in nebulous language (NIH, 2019; Renoe, 2023) and by disguising racial preferences and even quotas as “diversity of backgrounds” and unequal treatment as “broadening participation of underrepresented groups.” The determination of which groups to treat as underrepresented and worthy of special treatment is highly subjective, as Americans hold many identities and can be split up in a multitude of ways. In practice, implementing equity-focused DEI programs means preferring members of some groups over others (Kendi, 2019). To paraphrase Orwell, all groups are equal, but some groups are more equal than others (Orwell, 1945).

The evaluations of submitted DEI plans are not open to public scrutiny. Agencies run diversity-focused programs but refuse to give guidance on how to determine eligibility for them; they are careful to state that compliance with all applicable employment laws is the responsibility of the host institution. However, DEI metrics, which must be reported annually to the funding agency, are criteria for renewal (NIH, 2023b). It remains unclear how a principal investigator is supposed to be nondiscriminatory in hiring and at the same time fulfill de facto DEI quotas for renewal. In this way, programs are developed that are de jure “open to everyone,” but de facto allocated according to identity metrics, reminiscent of the pre-civil rights era in the U.S.

Why is this happening?  The proximate reason for DEI requirements is government regulations (see below), but the ultimate reason is the “racial reckoning” taking place in America, a reckoning speeded up by the death of George Floyd and extending now to many minority groups save those who have done well, like Jews and Asians.  The paper doesn’t mention ultimate causes, but does show several federal requirements that gave rise to DEI mandates:

In fact, the mandate that funding agencies implement DEI comes directly from the White House. Executive Order 13985, titled “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” directed all federal agencies to allocate resources to DEI and to incorporate “equity” into their decision making as a principle (EO 13985).

. . .If “consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals” means equality of opportunity and equitable treatment of people’s accomplishments based on their merit, we’re all for it. However, the Order goes on to make clear that the goal is not to achieve equal opportunity and equitable treatment, but to achieve equal outcomes for identity groups. The Order conflates racism in the past with disparities in the present and equitable treatment with equal outcomes. It attributes unequal participation in the present to alleged discrimination in the present. It charges the Domestic Policy Council with the task “[of] remov[ing] systemic barriers,” thus implicitly asserting the existence of such barriers in the present. It calls for “redress[ing] inequities,” “affirmatively advancing equity,” and “allocating Federal resources in a manner that increases investment in underserved communities, as well as individuals from those communities.” Whatever is to be said about such goals in relation to, say, social welfare programs, we question their value and appropriateness for science funding.

The authors note that in this executive order “merit,” “excellence” and “achievement” are not mentioned at all.

There is one more federal order:

The goal of promoting “equity” in science is reinforced in Executive Order 14091 (EO 14091). Titled “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” it explains how equity is to be implemented in various domains, and specifically calls for the “promot[ion] [of] equity in science.” It lays out specific DEI requirements for federal agencies, including NASA and NSF, such as the following:

The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Director of the National Science Foundation […] (agency heads) shall, within 30 days of the date of this order, ensure that they have in place an Agency Equity Team within their respective agencies to coordinate the implementation of equity initiatives and ensure that their respective agencies are delivering equitable outcomes for the American people.

Both of these are orders are enforced by the government’s Office of Management and Budget, which monitors agencies to ensure that they meet DEI concerns.

What is to be done? The purpose of scientific research is not to be a lever for creating social justice. That’s the job of the government, but the government cannot violate the law to effect the change we need. In lieu of creating new law, they have to effect desired change within existing legal boundaries.  My own view, which is echoed by the authors, is to hold scientific merit as the overweening criterion for funding research.

At the same time, it would be churlish to ignore the palpable inequality in American society, an inequality that deprives some groups of simple access to doing science, often because their backgrounds and the existence of past racism or bigotry. This leads to the need for equal opportunity, something that Americans apparently lack the stomach for. Equity has become  a quick fix, a way to tell us that we’re good people, but it’s neither a permanent fix nor, in science, a way to best advance the field.  So ditch the DEI requirements mandating equity and do this:

Systemic disparities in opportunity, especially those related to socio-economic status, are real and well documented. Solid family structure, access to healthcare, good nutrition, an environment free from violence and drugs, high-quality preschool and K–12 education are necessary to nurture the next generation of scientists, but they are not equally available to all Americans. Rather than attempt to institute “equity” by mandating proportional participation through the manipulation of grant funding, we believe that increased efforts should be made to promote equality of opportunity as early in people’s lives as possible so that young people who aspire to standing in any field, including scientific fields, can succeed on merit (Abbot et al., 2023; Abbot et al., 2024; Loury, 2024).

It is sad that to write something like that, or the paper itself, is an act of courage in today’s political climate. But if you’re committed to advancing science, with equality of opportunity as a moral ancillary, then one must judge science on merit alone while working politically to eliminate differences in opportunity.

In the end, DEI statements should be no more than this: “This project will not discriminate against anybody on the grounds of race, religion, disability status, gender, or sexual identity or orientation.” End of story.

Bret Weinstein embarrasses himself again, disses modern evolutionary biology for not understanding everything, osculates Intelligent Design

June 24, 2024 • 9:30 am

I’m tired of Bret Weinstein pushing conspiracy theories, and just as tired of him making proclamations about evolutionary biology that are misleading or flat wrong.  I’m especially peeved today because, in the video below, he claims that both Richard Dawkins and I have said that “evolution biology is settled” because I, at least, claimed that the big advances at the beginning of the field, involving people like Darwin, Fisher, Haldane, Sewall Wright, and Ernst Mayr, established the foundations of the field, and we don’t see such big advances any more.  Where are today’s Darwins? (This was a question posed to me by Dick Lewontin when I interviewed him some years ago.) And yes, I probably said that and do believe it. But that doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology is “settled”. It’s that our approach to understanding evolution in nature has been somewhat asymptotic, with a big leap at the beginning and then incremental progress since the 1940s.  Indeed, I think that advances such as the “modern synthesis” of the 1930s and 1940s, showing that Darwinian natural selection was compatible with modern genetics, was a huge synthesis that hasn’t been equaled. And, of course, science of any sort never reaches an asymptote, for that would be “complete understanding: the ultimate truth,” which is unattainable.

In the video below, Weinstein and Heying argue that Dawkins and I think that evolutionary biology is “settled,” and that our view impedes progress in the field, allows evolutionary biology to stagnate, and, most important, impedes people’s failure to take Intelligent Design theory seriously for raising serious problems with neo-Darwinism.  Further, he says that we’ve discouraged graduate students from entering the field and have not produced, as mentors, our “replacements.” He’s dead wrong here, at least for me: I’d put my graduate students (and their graduate students) up against anybody’s as having made substantial progress in evolutionary genetics.

Yes, we have nobody around today who’s made advances as big as those of Darwin or Fisher. But that doesn’t mean at all, as Weinstein and Heather Heying assert in the video below, that we think evolutionary biology is “settled.”  Far from it! First of all, neutral theory was a big step forward in evolutionary genetics, and that was introduced in 1968 and is still being developed.  We still don’t understand exactly why organisms reproduce sexually; we don’t understand how often speciation occurs without geographic isolation; we don’t understand what females, during sexual selection, are looking for when they choose a mate. I could list tons of other questions, but these are three that I’ve written about and are mentioned by Weinstein.

Weinstein and Heying’s claim in the video is that there are huge advances, on the scale of Darwin’s and Fisher’s, to be made, perhaps by people who are working in intelligent design. (Weinstein implies that he has a theory that may be on this scale as well.) To be sure, they note that the IDers like Stephen Meyer and his “high-quality colleagues”, are motivated by religion, but Weinstein sees them still asking important and serious questions that evolutionists haven’t answered, thus motivating evolutionists to better understand nature.  Nope. ID adocates have wasted the time of evolutionists in refuting IDer’s specious arguments. Why do they do this? To let the credulous public, much of which buys ID, know that science can answer those criticisms.  That’s why there were so many critiques of Michael Behe’s books by reputable scientists.

Three questions that evolutionists have supposedly set aside and neglected are these: “What caused the Cambrian explosion?”, “Why are there gaps in the fossil record?” and “How can we get complex working proteins when their existence is so improbable?”

The answer to the first question is “We don’t know, but there are theories and some of them are being tested.”

The second question has a spate of possible answers (lack of sediment deposition, rapid evolution in relatively short evolutionary times, and so on). But one thing we know is that Gould’s explanation—the theory of punctuated equilibrium—is not likely to be the answer, as the theory doesn’t work. (People don’t often realize that punctuated equilibrium, as advanced by Gould and Eldredge, is more than just a jerky pattern in the fossil record: it’s also a theory about why the pattern is supposedly ubiquitous. The ubiquity of the pattern in fact is still being argued, but we know that it’s not ubiquitous.) But in the end, Gould’s explanation—the really novel and non-Darwinian part punctuated equilibrium—was simply wrong.

As for the third question, the claim that the origin of complex proteins is improbable is not one taken seriously by molecular evolutionists, simply because we have no indication that it really is a problem. The idea that it is a problem comes from specious claims of IDers that such proteins assemble themselves randomly rather than by selection, or that mutation is too unlikely to fuel the process (there are other fuels, of course, like gene duplication and insertions of DNA).

At 2:56, in the video below, Weinstein asserts that evolutionary biologists have simply left the Big Questions “on the table”, questions like “where did all the species come from?” and “why do females put males in so many species to challenges that then cause them to burden their male offspring with elaborate displays that are not helpful?”

Weinstein is apparently unaware that I wrote a comprehensive and scholarly book on speciation in 2004 and outlined a lot of unanswered questions, so no, Dr. Weinstein, I did NOT think that the question “wasn’t worthy of my time”. And yes, we do have considerably more understanding these days about how species form. That’s also described in the book.

He’s also apparently unaware that many biologists have been working on sexual selection, which is simply a hard problem to test in nature. And he doesn’t understand that elaborate displays by males are helpful: they help males get mates. Peacocks with more “eyes” in their tails, for example, get more offspring. Widowbirds whose tails are artificially elongated by gluing on extra feather get more mates, too.  Weinstein is ignorant about how sexual selection works, and how theories about it have been tested.

At any rate, I no longer take Weinstein seriously as a biologist, or even as an intellectual. He may have been a good teacher at Evergreen State, but he’s not on the rails when it comes to evolutionary biology (his last peer-reviewed paper was in 2005, and Researchgate lists 4 total publications). He’s also advanced specious theories about ivermectin being both a good preventive and cure for Covid, he’s suggested that AIDS was caused by party drugs and not a virus, and he’s suggested that the death of Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis was suspicious, perhaps because Mullis has criticized Anthony Fauci (did Fauci order a hit? LOL!).  Weinstein’s even wrapped his cameras in aluminum foil because he suspected some sinister forces were impeding his transmission. He gave his cameras tinfoil hats!

A tweet from Michael Shermer, aimed at Weinstein, about Kary Mullis’s death:

In his Substack column below, Jesse Singal shows other conspiracy theories/dubious theories that Weinstein and Heying have advanced (Weinstein is more vociferous than Heying, so I give him most of the opprobrium). Click to read:

Here you can see Weinstein going after Dawkins and me by misrepresenting our views. Yes, I do think that understanding of evolution has slowed down since Darwin and since the 1940s, since most of these “founders” seem to have gotten the major parts of the modern synthesis right—except for neutral theory, which was a huge advance. But I surely do not believe (nor do I think that Dawkins believes) that we have pretty much completed our understanding of evolution. But I’ll let Dawkins speak for himself.

And of course the IDers love Weinstein and Heyer’s podcast, because they give so much credit to Intelligent Design in pinpointing the “neglected” Big Questions about evolution.It’s thus a pity that IDers, like Weinstein himself, hardly have any peer-reviewed papers in real scientific journals advancing their theories! Read below to see how much IDers love Weinstein.

 

Now I surely don’t think that Weinstein is stupid at all; he’s really quite smart. But I think that, in his desire to find a niche for himself, and garner a measure of public approbation, he’s deliberately embraced conspiracy theories, highly praised the gussied-up creationism of Intelligent Design, and, most annoying, almost willfully misunderstood evolutionary biology.