Coyne of the Scientific Realm

Progressive ideology threatens integrity of science

The Palm House at the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, London, England. Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0.

Jerry Coyne recently commented on an exhibit at Kew Gardens that subjugates science to ideology in an attempt to find justification for human non-binary sexual identity by pointing to supposed parallels in Nature.  This is symptomatic of a broader, worrisome trend of forcing science to conform to ideology.  Another recent article, by Coyne and Luana Maroja, in the Skeptical Inquirer, should be read and contemplated by every scientist because it lays out how the foundations of science are being poisoned by a conformity that dictates what we may say without being cancelled and limits the questions which may be pursued by science.  If science is to remain the pursuit of knowledge, founded in observation, experimentation, truth and objectivity, then it cannot be constrained by ideology.   We cannot understand ourselves, our world or the universe by limiting research to politically-correct topics or selectively seeking out support for preexisting beliefs.  Galileo would have recognized this kind of insistence on ideological conformity and the intolerance that we see from those seeking to reinforce and impose their views and social objectives.  I find it disturbing that, after four hundred years of scientific progress since Galileo, we now see words, ideas and lines of research silenced or sidelined because they fail to conform to progressive ideology.

In an earlier podcast, I discussed proposals to rename species whose epithets are considered by some to be offensive, such as names honoring figures from the past who bear guilt, real or perceived, for misdeeds. Becoming educated and intellectually mature includes recognizing that inconsistencies, paradoxes and gray areas are, for both better and worse, a part of the human condition. As is thoughtfully learning from past mistakes and short-comings.  Judging historic figures by current standards, ignoring the milieu in which they lived, is as naïve and unfair as expecting them to measure up to a level of purity of thought and action that their accusers fail to meet in their own lives.  We should embrace and learn from history in its full complexity, including the good, the bad and the ugly, so that we never forget past mistakes and profit by learning from them.  Whitewashing history, imposing ideological constraints and creating a safe space where our preconceptions and cherished biases are never challenged, is as much a threat to the integrity of science today as it was during the 1633 inquisition.

Coyne and Maroja point out ways in which scientific facts are being denied in the name of wokeness; how language is being purified and traditional measures of merit devalued; impacting how science is taught, what science can be funded or published, and which scientists are adored or cancelled. Among examples presented by Coyne and Maroja are the denial of the binary distribution of males and females among sexually reproducing organisms; the political imposition of the so-called ‘blank slate’ ideology that assumes differences between human males and females are due only to socialization; the denial that there are evolutionary roots for human behaviors; and the feel-good acceptance of diverse ways of knowing as being equivalent to the modern scientific method.

Their essay is far-ranging yet bound together by logic, a commitment to freedom of thought, and a deep respect for science itself.  The job of science is not to reinforce a safe space where our beliefs, superstitions, and prejudices go unchallenged; where unfortunate events of history are papered over to protect our delicate feelings; and where lines of investigation are arbitrarily closed off because they dare to challenge a currently popular and intolerant ideology.

They quote Steven Pinker who put the rational goal of equality into perspective, stating that “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable;  it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”  This basic moral respect for each and every individual human being, as an individual, is being eroded by increasingly pervasive group identities that invite unfair judgements of individuals based the averages that Pinker refers to.

Coyne and Maroja have sounded the alarm.  Science is being corrupted by a progressive ideology intolerant of diverse thought, blind to the rigor of the scientific method, and in denial of objective evidence, that threatens the growth of knowledge by silencing or cancelling anyone who dares not conform to its assumptions, aims and wishes.  Science relies on testing ideas by objective observations and experiments; on daring to pursue truth, even when it steps on toes, is inconvenient, or makes us uncomfortable.  Science pursues and repeatedly tests knowledge and, in so doing, approximates truth. Society has the burden of determining how scientific knowledge is used, and whether it is used wisely; it interferes with the growth and testing of knowledge at its own great peril.

There is a long-standing myth that scientists are coldly objective, like Dr. Spock on the Enterprise.  That, of course, is silly.  Scientists are people, too, with short-comings, biases, and false pre-conceptions like everyone else.  The difference lies in adhering to the scientific method which is self-correcting, questioning everything, and recognizing that even our most cherished and deeply held beliefs are open to testing and potential refutation in the light of new evidence.  But the amazing property of science to rise above human foibles requires that it enjoy freedom of thought, that it not be shackled by ideologies that limit the questions it can ask—or the answers that it can report.

From scientific names of plants and animals coined in an age of colonialism to research on the genetic basis of our humanness, science thrives when it is unconstrained by politics and ideology.  Science offers promise of knowledge and understanding, not protection from hurt feelings or challenges to current beliefs.  Legitimate science reveals to us how we, the world and universe are, where we and they came from, and how we and they operate; it loses its revelatory powers when it is manipulated, constrained or selectively practiced in order to reinforce preordained ideas or to advance a social agenda.

There is no better way to end than to quote from Coyne and Maroja’s conclusions:

“Unless there is a change in the Zeitgeist, and unless scientists finally find the courage to speak up against the toxic effects of ideology on their field, in a few decades science will be very different from what it is now.  Indeed, it’s doubtful that we’d recognize it as science at all.”

We should thank Coyne and Maroja for their courage to speak out in defense of science and freedom of thought at a time when so many have surrendered to, or been cowered by, social forces that, no matter how well-intentioned, threaten the foundations and future of science itself. Society can wake up to social and political issues, and pursue a more just world, without putting science to sleep or robbing us of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and lessons that can be learned only from an unvarnished history that includes both humankind’s greatest achievements and it’s most colossal missteps.

Further Reading (and a YouTube interview with the authors)

Coyne, Jerry A.  2023. Imposing your ideology on nature: Kew Gardens celebrates “queer plants.” Why Evolution is True, July 9.

Coyne, Jerry A. and Luana S. Maroja. 2023. The ideological subservion of biology.  Skeptical Inquirer, 47, July/August.

Center for Inquiry. The ideological subversion of biology with Jerry Coyne and Luana Maroja. YouTube.