Zuleyka Zevallos' The March for Science Can't Figure Out How to Handle Diversity highlights conflicting opinions on diversity within the scientific community particularly in the context of the March for Science movement. When considering how this speaks to issues relevant to our Writing for Sciences course, I was struck by the multiple references to non-scientists and reminded of how so many of our readings have reiterated the importance of considering non-scientific audiences in our writing. The other point that I felt was in line with much of the guidance that we have received from the many sources referenced in this course was the integrity of the scientific peer review process. I was concerned to read that according to this article some of the decisions of the current administration have put this, scientific funding, and information about critical global issues such as climate change at risk. According to the writer, “This political issue harms science because it hampers the people and networks of collaboration without whom science is not possible.” If this is, in fact, true then many of rhetorical course concepts that we have studied this semester would also be at risk.
In the second article Nature's How the March for Science Splits Researchers, University College Cork Ireland lecturer states her reason for participating in the march, “I am going so I can stand up for evidence-based policies and the scientific method. The current wave of ‘anti-science’ rhetoric goes against everything that I am trying to do as a scientist and an educator. I keep telling my students that I’m going because science is worth protecting: for them, and for all of us.” I believe that this thinking can inform how we approach our semester major projects because it underscores the importance of not using bias in our work and the vital role that each of us plays in protecting science and the scientific process. It is a good reminder to ensure that we should rely on multiple sources and not take a single opinion as the only truth. Our projects are meant to be opportunities for each of us to communicate effectively to the public about key scientific concepts. Part of doing that effectively will be to be both unbiased and truthful while protecting the scientific basis of the concepts we are exploring. I believe that we have a chance with these projects to affect a better understanding of the concepts we are focused on as well as science itself.
2 Comments
Ava Mastrostefano
4/9/2018 07:09:34 am
You noted that the article mentioned how the political issue can harm science. However, it is difficult not to address science as a political issue when the political decisions being made by Trump administration are calling science into question and ignoring science as a reliable source of information. It's like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I feel as though if the March for Science, or the scientific community in general, can figure out how to integrate social sciences and diversity into the conversation, they would be able to use the political nature of science today to unite the community and advocate for scientific consideration in policy making. However, once people see themselves as divided, it is difficult to find common ground.
Reply
Tory Stoddard
4/9/2018 11:56:19 am
I also think that knowing the difference between unbiased and truthful stances will be beneficial to our final project. I also thought you had a good understanding of the articles. Good work
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHi! I am Collin Barker and I am a Marine Biology Major at Roger Williams University, an avid reader and fish keeper. To learn more about me check out my About page. Archives
May 2018
Categories |