It's very strange that people think it's only the right that is critiquing and, in some instances, trying to delegitimize science.
(Wiley Publishers)
Every arena of science has its own flash-point issues—chemistry and poison gas, physics and the atom bomb—and genetics has had a troubled history with race. As Jonathan Marks reveals, this dangerous relationship rumbles on to this day, still leaving plenty of leeway for a belief in the basic natural inequality of races.
The eugenic science of the early twentieth century and the commodified genomic science of today are unified by the mistaken belief that human races are naturalistic categories. Yet their boundaries are founded neither in biology nor in genetics and, not being a formal scientific concept, race is largely not accessible to the scientist. As Marks argues, race can only be grasped through the humanities: historically, experientially, politically.
This wise, witty essay explores the persistence and legacy of scientific racism, which misappropriates the authority of science and undermines it by converting it into a social weapon.
---
"With his usual alacrity and insight, Jonathan Marks demonstrates how we (the human sciences) allow, even enable, misguided racial perspectives and racist research. In showing us our history, he provides an important cautionary tale for present and future scientists. This book is a must read for researchers and students alike. History not learned is doomed to be repeated." - Agustín Fuentes, University of Notre Dame
[...]
"Is Science Racist? is an especially important read for undergraduate and graduate students in anthropology, biology, genetics, psychology, and other human services and behavioural sciences academic fields. Marks eschews scientific jargon and technical language, making this book accessible to a general readership, and he covers a tremendous amount of ground in this brief work. The book is also an essential read for established scholars and practitioners in the aforementioned fields." - Ethnic and Racial Studies
I think by decade's end (and certainly once the post-pandemic glow has subsided for Dems) works like this will be more frequently read and, in a way that we've already seen over the last five years, the narrow academic argument herein will be warped into something much more maximal that is weaponized to bludgeon the entirety institution (which of course in many cases deserves it).
The essay above is much more nuanced than the title suggests, but the choice of title here was no doubt meant to provoke and cast doubt on the entirety of the institution. Likewise Vine Deloria's and other indigenous activists' and writers' takes on scientific imperialism and creation stories will be unearthed and we could very easily see a resurgence of accepted creationism. We already saw earlier this year a mainstream left narrative that essentially gave non-white people permission to not take the vaccines due to the history of scientific racism. Moving forward it's not hard to imagine the racist history of science being used to justify or excuse some excessive and frightening countermeasures.
In fact, if the question in the poll provided was phrased to mention eugenics instead of institutions, then the Democratic trust would certainly be much lower. Rightly so, as eugenics was an insidious and unsupported ideology designed and exploited for evil purposes. But my points here are that (1) science is and has been frequently warped for social purposes, (2) conservatives are not the only ones who mistrust or sow mistrust in science, and (3) elements of the new left could soon mainstream critiques of scientific ideas that are currently thought of as untouchable.
