· I am thankful the most fascinating work I read so far this year was when my group presented, as it made me take thorough notes on the subject so that I could come fully prepared the date of the presentation. That work was about how science is dictated not by the research itself, but by the perception of the scientific community and society at large. The main question that I want to pursue is exactly this: how has science been shaped by the context of historical and culture factors that lead to the exclusion of marginalized and minority groups? My claim to this is as followed: The promotion of the “heroism” myth explicitly contrasts with that of “objectivity” and the scientific method to uphold and maintain unjust hierarchies relating to white supremacy. While obviously drawing from Week 7’s work with Oreskes and Hidden Figures, one can also use the article highlighting traits of white supremacy culture to show the effects heroism has on society and the people living in it. Because heroism attempts to frame science in only one specific direction, feminist standpoint theory can describe how other viewpoints which may be helpful to science are left out and not heard.
· Another topic I have interest in that could also intertwine with the first one deals with the question of how if science is motivated by politics: I would make the claim that in at least the western world science has been largely moved forward by white supremacy, and also helps to advance it as well. We can see this explicitly with World War II in the Oppenheimer atomic bomb readings, when physicists were forced to work nonstop grueling hours in order to produce an atomic bomb before Nazi Germany did, and even when the Nazis were defeated they had to keep pushing just as hard to finish the bomb, even though the Japanese had no nuclear program at the time. Again, one can look to the traits of white supremacy in order to see the types of actions and motivations that led to science heading in this direction. One can also look to Marie Curie, who was raked in the coals for years and belittled because of her gender, causing her work to be shown as arduous, dull, done before, and/or not important to the scientific community at large.
· Speaking in terms of more of the present day, one can look to how scientists have to respond in the aftermath of certain political, economic, and social crises that upend and attempt to replace existing hierarchical and socioeconomical structures in a society. Does the scientific community and science itself have a say in events not pertaining to their work? My claim is that because those in the scientific communities are by definition studying the nature of how the world works, and are humans themselves with their own biases, they are directly involved and have an obligation to share their views on the subject. Going back to the beginning of the semester we read articles pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement, questioning should scientists stay neutral. It highlighted how since most presently working scientists are white and male, this has a distinct bias on any observation/research involving black communities, including climate change. We can also look back to the Oppenheimer articles; the dozens of scientists that spoke out against the creation of an atomic bomb and their profession for pacifism in contrast to the federal government’s maintenance of the nuclear weapon.