Time to Remove the “Science” from “Social Science”
By: Will Sommers
Tags: Equity, Diversity, STEM, Science, Inclusion

As a visitor to the world of Academia and STEM, what was once a sense of awe and wonderment has slowly dissolved into a real sense of concern. Concern that the dictates of the High Priest of DIE (Diversity Inclusivity and Equity) will get their grubby mitts on STEM.

EDI versus DIE

If humanities dogged determination had a home, then surely STEM would be a contender for best place to live. Any recognizable public appreciation may be hard to see, or non-existent, except in the adaptation of our daily lives with the fruits that STEM brings to us all.

Utilizing, and rightly so, the competence of those in STEM, for the betterment of society is the hallmark of the progress we have made as a species, and in such a short space of time.

Consider the work of NASA in getting us off this planet and out into the stars, and the dogged determination of the STEM folk who have just collaborated on a massive scale to cope with a pandemic.

Together, events some 60 years apart that provide a heartening and glorious illustration of the ability of STEM in achieving proactive and reactive work and doing it well.

I sometimes think that the academic individual is good at underestimating the kind of trust that they engender in the public, a trust once eroded that will be hard to rebuild. The threat to that trust is very real, maybe some of them should start paying attention a bit more.

For STEM to function well, the dogged determination I so admire, must be cultivated by a society that recognizes the importance of enquiry, of free speech and of the freedom of the individual to “do a science”.

The best way to use that science is, as always up for debate, but to let ideological concerns circumvent the science, peer review, or any other scrutiny is a serious consideration where it happens and a disaster were it to happen to often.

And then this from Nature, a piece on the “Social Sciences”, that surmises men make better mentors than women (groan).

The publication of a paper on mentorship, now retracted, led us to reflect on our editorial processes and strengthened our determination in supporting diversity, equity and inclusion in research.

This loaded sentence contains all the evidence of the threat to STEM as illustrated by this Social Sciences example, where ideologues and tribal groups, hell-bent on suppression of ideas that they find distasteful or offensive, have won out.

Nature setting itself up as the arbiter of what is and is not worthy on behalf of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity (DIE) should chill any STEM academic (or anyone for that matter) to the bone.

The fact they used the word Equity and not Equality is a sign of the degree of capitulation that this august journal has already made to the venomous woke and Identitarian crowd that have already done for the humanities and the arts and are hell-bent on coming for STEM.

This Social Sciences paper, “The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance” that has caused such fuss in the field and beyond, provides a perfect example of how the emotionalized mind is ever vigilant for offence taking or transgression that can be punished.

In this case it appears that some feminists have caused the furore, they may have, but to me that matters not one whit.

I follow many STEM feminists as well as those in other fields, especially so the most hard-nosed ones who would not give up their feminist route for any a “princely sum”.

Do I agree with them all the time? Absolutely not, they dribble on about all sorts of nonsense that I would never agree with, and likewise they often disagree with me and my equally dribbly nonsense as well.

But to cultivate this disagreement is to do so is in an atmosphere of enquiry, individuality, and the joy of debate and yes, occasionally, the quick quip and repartee, or (God forbid) slavish and withering insult.

I cannot speak to the efficacy of this paper, I find those individuals that can guide me wherever I can, from the frequent Magpie like collection of daily nuggets to mentorships cultivated over time, and I am grateful to the men and women who have afforded me their wisdom and leadership throughout my life.

Perhaps the public purse could be better spent than on one more grievance study, but that is not my call to make. Neither is it Natures.

This whole sorry mess has led to the updating of guidelines for publishing papers of this type.

As part of our investigation, we also reviewed our editorial practices and policies and, in the past few weeks, have developed additional internal guidelines, and updated information for authors on how we approach this type of paper. As part of these guidelines, we recognise that it is essential to ensure that such studies are considered from multiple perspectives including from groups concerned by the findings. We believe that this will help us ensure that the review process takes into account the dimension of potential harm, and that claims are moderated by a consideration of limitations when conclusions have potential policy implications. We will keep developing our guidelines for manuscripts with sensitive research in the social and behavioural sciences, and in areas with significant societal and public policy impact.

“Potential Harm” — What on earth does that even mean, what harm? To feelings?

Well whoop de do, hard cheese, life ain’t fair and this update is not going to help, not one jot.

Since when are Feminists so weak at the knees, they resort to having utterances, even if blatantly false, retracted in this way like purveyors of faux moral turpitude?

These are some of the toughest people I know, rigorous, grounded, like me, occasionally batty; but consistently dogged and committed to the point of admiration.

If the study is so wrong, (and let us be honest here, this is the social sciences, which as a discipline appears to me as an outsider to be “shonky” at best) then let the damn thing get the drubbing it deserves in the cold light of day.

Though this censorious attitude is the least worrying aspect of this whole farrago of capitulation

Emotionalism is the bane of modern life, and here we have a well respected and established player making enormous assumptions about what may happen, if someone dare utter something a particular group gets upset about, as if we should give a “rats ass” they are upset in the first place.

How is that going to help with the “replication crisis” facing the various manifestations of work under the banner of “Social Science” if they now arbitrate on “hurty feels” and self-indulgent emotionalism?

The insidious wording of the new guidelines makes clear that ideological anti-free speech behaviour is apparent, when in reality, a journal such as Nature should just publish, allow for critique and be damned.

Editors may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues, issues of data or materials access or concerns related to implications for the group under study or broader societal implications of publishing a paper.

And there you have it; Nature is placing group driven, collective and tribal ideological concerns over rationale. Essentially an ephemeral board of disparate DIE whingers that can stick their metaphorical oar in when they fancy.

This is wholly unnatural, and the antithesis of individual autonomy and enlightenment enquiry.

Nature can “Get. In. The. Bin.”

So, my lovely STEM professionals and academics consider this…

If they can do it to the “social sciences” can they do it to you?