For Scientific Institutions, Racial Reconciliation Requires Reparations
By C. Brandon Ogbunu,
Scientific American
| 06. 12. 2020
Antiracism in science must be about much more than challenging the bigoted graybeards of our past such as Ronald A. Fisher.
Ronald Fisher as a steward at the First International Eugenics Conference, 1912 (via wikipedia)
Amidst protests and conversations on racism following several instances of police violence, scientific institutions are reevaluating their approach to dealing with anti-Black racism—extant, historical or symbolic. For example, on Wednesday, June 10, a large segment of the scientific community (and the staffs of prominent journals) participated in a strike, where the goal was to reflect on how Black people—students, trainees, staff, and faculty—are treated, and how we can make the scientific paradigm more inclusive.
This includes several ongoing policy discussions surrounding diversity and inclusion, and very specific exchanges about how we remember and celebrate historical figures. For example, the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE) is one of many influential scientific societies embroiled in a debate over renaming a prestigious award that currently commemorates Ronald A. Fisher (the R.A. Fisher Prize). Fisher was a pioneer of modern population genetics and one of the most influential scientists of the last century. His influence is as great in genetics as it is statistics, the latter...
Related Articles
By Pallab Gosh and Gwyndaf Hughes, BBC News | 06.26.2025
Work has begun on a controversial project to create the building blocks of human life from scratch, in what is believed to be a world first.
The research has been taboo until now because of concerns it could lead to...
Since the “CRISPR babies” scandal in 2018, no additional genetically modified babies are known to have been born. Now several techno-enthusiastic billionaires are setting up privately funded companies to genetically edit human embryos, with the explicit intention of creating genetically modified children.
Heritable genome editing remains prohibited by policies in the overwhelming majority of countries that have any relevant policy, and by a binding European treaty. Support for keeping it legally off limits is widespread, including among scientists...
By Ron Leuty, San Francisco Business Times | 06.16.2025
23andMe's two-step sale to a nonprofit led by former CEO Anne Wojcicki is nothing more than a dance around California's genetic privacy law, state Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a filing late Monday, one day before a judge will...
By Ed Cara, Gizmodo | 06.22.2025
In late May, several scientific organizations, including the International Society for Cell and Gene Therapy (ISCT), banded together to call for a 10-year moratorium on using CRISPR and related technologies to pursue human heritable germline editing. The declaration also outlined...