CERN and creating knowledge
Sep. 10th, 2008 08:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greenie_breizhGranted, I am not known for my super scientific mind, but so far from what I've heard about the CERN and its LHC, all I can think is:
...we really should be spending our research money on other stuff.
...how much energy are they using just to run this thing?
...will we ever know where to stop and what are we doing with this knowledge?
The thing to me about scientific knowledge is very often it doesn't seem to be put into any kind of perspective. It's all knowledge for knowledge's sake, which arguably is cool, but the problem is that knowledge isn't created in a vaccuum and I wish we would think more seriously about the consequences of that, about the social context in which we come up with that knowledge and the meanings and uses that are going to be put onto it. I guess I have more examples that come to mind with genetics and bioengineering, but fuck knows nuclear research has blown up in our faces, too (but I guess not really our faces so it's all good).
I'm also slowly coming to wonder if knowledge for knowledge's sake in the sciences is all that good. I mean, scientific knowledge in itself isn't good or bad (though arguably depending on how much energy it demands you could also wonder if the means are worth the end). I guess it's just that the applications for that knowledge can be so wrong that it really makes me wonder if the pros outweigh the cons of just leaving some things unknown.
Yesterday my TA class was...interesting, to say the least, and I want to say a word about that, but first I have to take Mommy Cat to the vet to get spayed. She peed in the litter box overnight and I'm hoping this is going to be the end of that.
...we really should be spending our research money on other stuff.
...how much energy are they using just to run this thing?
...will we ever know where to stop and what are we doing with this knowledge?
The thing to me about scientific knowledge is very often it doesn't seem to be put into any kind of perspective. It's all knowledge for knowledge's sake, which arguably is cool, but the problem is that knowledge isn't created in a vaccuum and I wish we would think more seriously about the consequences of that, about the social context in which we come up with that knowledge and the meanings and uses that are going to be put onto it. I guess I have more examples that come to mind with genetics and bioengineering, but fuck knows nuclear research has blown up in our faces, too (but I guess not really our faces so it's all good).
I'm also slowly coming to wonder if knowledge for knowledge's sake in the sciences is all that good. I mean, scientific knowledge in itself isn't good or bad (though arguably depending on how much energy it demands you could also wonder if the means are worth the end). I guess it's just that the applications for that knowledge can be so wrong that it really makes me wonder if the pros outweigh the cons of just leaving some things unknown.
Yesterday my TA class was...interesting, to say the least, and I want to say a word about that, but first I have to take Mommy Cat to the vet to get spayed. She peed in the litter box overnight and I'm hoping this is going to be the end of that.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 11:11 pm (UTC)I have to take issue with the examples you use to try to prove your points. It seems that you are saying that anti-gay research and research exploring how we could correct homosexuality are somehow "bad." From your pro-gay perspective, these research topics are obviously cause for alarm. However, to someone who is anti-gay, the goal of your research would cause heart palpitations as well.
The act of investigating these topics is not a bad thing. To take your correcting homosexuality example, researchers are currently trying to figure out the biological basis of homosexuality. Obviously, their hypothesis includes the bias that somehow homosexuality is abnormal, since there is no research aimed towards discovering the biological basis of heterosexuality. They've found genes that may have a link to homosexuality - this is pure knowledge. However, this discovery has re-opened the discussion of whether homosexuality is innate or a choice and paved the way for pro-gay activists to declare that there's scientific evidence that homosexuality is NOT a choice. These are the consequences of initially heterosexist research and clearly, something that anti-gay activists aren't too thrilled about. In this case, if the initial research hadn't been done, regardless of its motivation, the consequences also wouldn't have occurred.
As my teacher quoted in my Statistics class, "Statistics don't lie. People do." Similarly, data doesn't lie, people do. I believe that all knowledge is worth having, but as with anything, caution should be undertaken. Ethical guidelines should be adhered to. Decisions regarding the implications of the research should be carefully considered.
I have to admit, when I talk about research, I'm mainly talking about academic research. When money gets involved, such as in military and pharmaceutical research, ethics seem to fly straight out of the window.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 01:43 am (UTC)This contradicts your previous statement: «Scientific research is done for knowledge's sake and not for anything else». And as much as you displace the concern for truth-seeking towards a concern for progress-seeking, those two are part of the same construct. «Progress»-seeking is a western values based endeavour that translate into thinking constant technological discovery and implementation, constant production, power-serving knowledge (because the trope of objectivity serves dominant standpoints (Young, 1990)) are inherently *good*.
«I have to take issue with the examples you use to try to prove your points. It seems that you are saying that anti-gay research and research exploring how we could correct homosexuality are somehow "bad." From your pro-gay perspective, these research topics are obviously cause for alarm. However, to someone who is anti-gay, the goal of your research would cause heart palpitations as well.»
Yep, anti-gay research inherently is «bad». I consider it legitimate to have values direct the angles of my research. And I have the honesty to admit it and to point where they are. And yes, I consider my position more legitimate than the ones anti-gay folks adopt. Why, because I am a human being who believes in inclusion. You imply that the act of researching is neutral. It is not. That data is also neutral. It is not. It is selected and/or couched in terms that are value based. And you haven’t answered to the fact that all searchers who claim to be objective are not. Everyone, unconsciously, is selecting topics according to personal investments. And now, add this to the fact that White, heterosexual males searchers are over-represented and over-funded in academia (by over-represented white, heterosexual male research agency funders who get to select what research projects are more «important») because of the specific dynamics of historical and current imperialism, and you have a very dangerous cocktail on your hands. Whites, males and heterosexuals have more say in the direction our research is going – without the global population being consulted in any way.
You claim that values should not have a say in the research topic we are selecting. However, I am pretty certain you would object to research that is aimed at measuring how long human beings can survive when left in cold water, like nazi doctors did on concentration camp inmates – all this in a context where no other way of experimentation was possible to obtain such data. If you are ready to say that there is, here, a limit on the research topic that should be researched, then you are ready to admit that, per se, there can be limits on some research topics.
«The act of investigating these topics is not a bad thing.»
Even though non-scholars are not privy to everything that is happening on in our spheres, they regularly get a glimpse of what research angles are adopted. And that sends them messages. The marked emphasis on racial and sex intelligence and the way these were couched were sending the message that there was something problematic with being a woman and being non-White. The marked emphasis on the «origins of homosexuality» (and not on sexual orientation in general, that is, including heterosexuality) sends the message there is something wrong with homosexuality, whereas there is nothing problematic with heterosexuality or no worthwhile knowledge to be gleaned from studying it.
«They've found genes that may have a link to homosexuality - this is pure knowledge.»
Actually they haven’t. The research claiming so has been «debunked». But ok, let’s say they have for the sake of the argument.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 01:46 am (UTC)Granted, some are not perfectly thrilled, but others have already developed their counter-argument. Being genetically indisposed (that is, gay), they say, would not exempt them from guilt if they indulge in same-sex acts. They would just be like alcoholics who need to hold their drinking problem in check. And actually, this is pretty much the stance of the Catholic Church, which is nowhere near to budge on this matter. Also, the no-choice argument, in the long run, is a faulty one. It is an appeal to pity. Or can easily be understood as such. People can still consider you inferior. They can also, alternatively, decide to abort kids who have gay gene(s) (if they have nothing against abortion – which is the case of some anti-gay folks). And finally, nothing prevents researchers from embarking on further research that would provide gene therapy – or a «correction» to homosexuality.
Research topic selection, I insist, is not neutral. And responsibility not only rests on how people react to research results. Scholars have power and they/we know we have (and more so those who belong to dominant groups). Their/our decisions and inclinations have social impact. And pretending they/we are not part of society is at best a cognitive disjunction, at worse a pretentious value-based decision to consider we are entitled to research anything that pleases us – because, hey, we believe in «progress» and are entitled to define it as we like -, regardless of social consequences.
«As my teacher quoted in my Statistics class, "Statistics don't lie. People do." Similarly, data doesn't lie, people do.»
Well obviously, your teacher is caught up in a positivistic outlook. Although I do not consider we should discard all statistics, and although I take issue with people who offhandedly dismiss them by saying «well, you can make statistics say anything», I’m stressing this: statistics are not neutral. They are not pure data that give us a glimpse of «Reality» with an R. Take poverty, for example. We may select variables to measure poverty and have results that show a very high internal coherence. In relation to the frame of mind we have selected when defining poverty, our statistics/results may be highly reliable and highly valid. And we may strut about, confident in our objectivity because hey, we uncovered real, hard data applying strict discipline to data gathering. However, in being so blinded in our positivist outlook and our objectivity confidence, we totally miss the fact that our very definition of poverty, and hence the variables we select to measure it, are value-based. So what is it, do we measure poverty in absolute terms, à la Rowntree (1901), or in relative terms, à la Townsend (1952), or in terms of access to capabilities, à la Sen (1983)?
«I believe that all knowledge is worth having, but as with anything, caution should be undertaken. Ethical guidelines should be adhered to. Decisions regarding the implications of the research should be carefully considered.»
Ethical guidelines, yes. But why not refraining from embarking in some specific research endeavours alltogether? That reeks of «I’m gonna do it anyways, regardless of what objections we receive».
«I have to admit, when I talk about research, I'm mainly talking about academic research. When money gets involved, such as in military and pharmaceutical research, ethics seem to fly straight out of the window.»
Academic research is also dependant on funding. Funding that can come from apparently tame research agencies (but whose members are nonetheless a reflection of the power dynamics I was mentioning earlier), but also from doubtful sources like pharmaceutical companies or corporations. We depend on this money, and are vulnerable to the vested interests of those who provide it.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 01:47 am (UTC)Note: I am a teacher. And I happen to teach methodology at the university. Which makes me very familiar about epistemological, ontological and ethical debates. Of course, this debate is something I am very passionate about. However, it unfortunately takes of my worktime ;) So, if you want to consult some of my reading material, I would be happy to oblige.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 12:26 pm (UTC)We may differ on several issues but our viewpoints do converge on this one point - people should be very cautious about how research is conducted.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 02:42 am (UTC)Would you argue then that research looking at proving that some races are inferior to others is the same as research that seeks to show all races are "equal"? That both would be, from a scientific point of view, equally valuable and valid? (That's an actual question, not a rhetoric one, btw :)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-11 12:10 pm (UTC)To do research, you have to start out with an initial hypothesis. So say that someone wanted to prove that some races are inferior to others. That's the initial hypothesis. Then they conduct the research. The results can either support or nullify their initial hypothesis. Therefore, pursuing that line of research is not inherently bad because the results could very well show that all the races are "equal."
As an aside, you picked a very vague question, since then you would have to define equality and inferiority. In general, blacks are poorer than whites; does that make them inferior? Whites have higher rates of skin cancer than blacks; does that make them inferior?
What I'm trying to get at is that if you're a good scientist, your initial hypothesis and/or biases will ultimately not matter. If you conduct the research well, your results will speak for themselves. Plus, now we have so many peer review procedures in place before and after someone gets published, that it's rather difficult for someone else not to notice that your research is flawed in some capacity.