For over eight months, I have been chronicling the “ideological capture” of our scientific institutions, which has led to the reduction or elimination of funding to scientists whose research challenged “settled science”; to the deplatforming scientists, engineers, and technical professionals who go against the narrative; and to the denial of tenure, promotions, or hiring because research doesn’t meet the currently approved world view.
Some articles that highlight the unintended and potentially destructive consequences to this ideological capture include:
Scientists are now adding the weight of their experience and observations to the fight against this trend. The Wall Street Journal recently published a truly insightful opinion piece by Dr. Jerry A. Coyne (professor emeritus of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago) and Dr. Anna Krylov (professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California).
In their article, entitled “The ‘Hurtful’ Idea of Scientific Merit,” Coyne and Krylov argue that narrative-based ideology now dominates research in the U.S. more pervasively than it did at the Soviet Union’s height.
Their evaluation was inspired by a quest to have a rigorous and detailed analysis that defended merit-based consideration in science.
Legal Insurrection readers will not be surprised that they found only one taker, the Journal of Controversial Ideas.
Merit isn’t much in vogue anywhere these days. We’ve seen this in the trend among scientists to judge scientific research by its adherence to dominant progressive orthodoxies and in the growing reluctance of our institutions to hire and fund scientists based on their ability to propose and conduct exciting projects. Our intent was to defend established and effective practices of judging science based on its merit alone.Yet as we shopped our work to various scientific publications, we found no takers—except one. Evidently our ideas were politically unpalatable. It turns out the only place you can publish once-standard conclusions these days is in a journal committed to heterodoxy.
Coyne and Krylov delve into incursion of Marxist ideology into Soviet and Chinese agriculture in the mid-20th century, which had disastrous consequences for both nations. In their article, they argue the current situation is worse.
In some ways this new species of Lysenkoism is more pernicious than the old, because it affects all science—chemistry, physics, life sciences, medicine and math—not merely biology and agriculture. The government isn’t the only entity pushing it, either. “Progressive” scientists promote it, too, along with professional societies, funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health and Energy Department, scientific journals and university administrators.
Dewy-eyed progressives are rushing to place “indigenous ways of knowing” on par with hard science. For example, New Zealand’s government recently asserted traditional Maori mythology on equal to modern science. Coyne and Krylov blasted this approach.
They worked with over two dozen other science professionals who share their concerns.
But scientific research can’t and shouldn’t be conducted via a process that gives a low priority to science itself. This is why we wrote our paper, which was co-authored by 27 others, making for a group as diverse as you can imagine. We had men and women of various ages, ethnicities, countries of origin, political affiliations and career stages, including faculty from community colleges and top research universities, as well as two Nobel laureates.We provided an in-depth analysis of the clash between liberal epistemology and postmodernist philosophies. We documented the continuing efforts to elevate social justice over scientific rigor, and warned of the consequences of taking an ideological approach to research….
We are already experiencing many consequences related to narrative-based science, in the form of a host of social and health problems that stem from the ill-considered response to covid pandemic. The rush to impose a host of agricultural and energy polices based on “climate crisis” is most likely going to lead to hunger and unrest. The destruction of the mental health, quality of life, and reproductive capabilities of young men and women via distorted medical science dogma is tragic.
Despite the vast qualifications of the authors of this piece, the high quality if their data, and the logic of their arguments, they were turned down for publication, dismissed as “hurtful”.
But this was too much, even “downright hurtful,” as one editor wrote to us. Another informed us that “the concept of merit . . . has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow.”
I would like to give Coyne and Krylov a big thank you for their important work. Hopefully, it is not too late to reverse this disgraceful trend before the human, economic, and societal damage is irreversible.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY