A Radical ’70s-Era Group Is Relaunching to Help Scientists Get Political Under Trump
By Rebecca Onion, Slate | 08. 29. 2018
Advocates of science are in a bad place right now. Some days, in this Second Year of Trump, scientism—a blanket defense of science as a virtuous and almost holy exercise of objectivity and rationality—feels like the only natural response to the rising darkness. But, tempting as it might be, cheerleading for capital-S “Science” can’t be the answer. Science—as historians of science and practitioners of science and technology studies readily argue—is not an objective refuge; it’s shaped by politics just like any other human endeavor. How can we acknowledge that fact while still arguing for science’s authority and value?
From 1969 through 1989, the group Science for the People tried to do just that. Its members took “science has a politics” as a philosophical starting point and then used that understanding to push for radical change. Early on, the group protested weapons labs. Members worked with the Black Panther Party, helping with their free health clinics, and with the Young Lords Organization, assisting them in offering free lead-poisoning testing services. They sent equipment to Vietnamese scientists and helped Midwestern farmworkers...
Related Articles
Five years ago, Time magazine published the cover story illustrated at left: Can Google Solve Death? We have an answer: No. At least, not the way they thought they could. That’s a conclusion drawn from a new scientific paper describing a very large study that STAT summarized:
Life span has little to do with genes, analysis of large ancestry database shows
The company that Google set up for this task, Calico, has always been rather secretive and it...
As part of the American Experience series, PBS has produced a documentary and website about the 20th-century eugenics movement in the United States. The Eugenics Crusade was broadcast on October 16, and remains available on the web, along with eight features of varying types. The result is a valuable, if flawed, resource.
Far too few people know much about the history of eugenics, and this project will help to rectify that if it attracts the audience it deserves. The film...
By Travis Chi Wing Lau , Somatosphere [review of the book edited by CGS' Osagie K Obasogie and Marcy Darnovsky] | 09.13.2018
“The science will let loose its cascading interactions with utter impassivity; yet how we inhabit that knowledge will be a contest of the imagination, a sedimentation of political futures, a constructed infinity of worlds.” —Patricia J. Williams
What are...
When considering whether and how to proceed with regulating human germline gene editing, everyone supports public engagement. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS), the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, and the Center for Genetics and Society (CGS) all recommend a robust public debate. But no one really knows how to conduct one, and all too many efforts lay a heavy hand on one of the scales.
The first step would seem to involve asking and answering the superficially...
