By Gwen Frost
On May 16 in AW 204, Western hosted speaker Tracy L. Johnson to address the idea of “Why does science (and who does it) matter?”
Tracy L. Johnson (PhD) is the Maria Rowena Ross chair of cell biology and biochemistry at UCLA, in the department of molecular cell and developmental biology. She generally focuses on gene regulation and gene expression, but emphasized that in relation to this event, “tonight is special”.
Johnson said that science matters for three main reasons. Firstly, that science is an approach that provides a critical framework for decision-making. Johnson asked the audience the following question.
“Without scientific methodology, what are our methodologies based on?” Johnson asked.
She went on to illustrate how our biases, assumptions and prejudices can inaccurately determine our conclusions for us. When we are without scientific methodology, we are often left with only “ignorance, and its dangerous first cousin, fear” to help us make our decisions. Johnson emphasized that for democracy to function correctly, science is critical (especially given the moment we are in now). The present is critical due to the growing power of polarizing ideological extremes, a fractured media landscape which allows “anyone with a twitter feed” to speak directly to its most fervent supporters and the echo chambers we allow ourselves to live in. The current global landscape of information that connects us all can be a slippery platform where misinformation can be rapidly widespread, with catastrophic consequences. How can we determine what are actual or fake facts? Johnson seems to think that the ultimate authority should be given to scientific methodology.
Secondly, science matters because it proffers the opportunity to make the world a better place. The creation of Penicillin, which fundamentally changed medicine, came not from a desire to create medicine but rather “from a thirst to understand the natural world”. Similarly, the invention of the microwave oven was stimulated by Percy Spencer’s discovery when he walked past a microwave radar transmitter that was in use during WWII. Working for a company called Raytheon, he discovered that his proximity to the machines made the chocolate in his pocket melt. Within the scientific field, both applied research and basic fundamental research invoke curiosity that can lead to making the world a better place, even if it leads us to a place that we could never have predicted.
Thirdly, Johnson proclaimed that “science can elevate the human spirit”: in our efforts to put human into space, we furthered the desire that we could move beyond what we could see, and ultimately gave all humanity the hope and relief of the infinite possibilities of where humanity could (quite literally) go. The correlation of this movement to get man into space furthered the empowerment of the civil rights movement, notably used by civil rights activist Martin Luther King, who said if the US can spend “twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God’s children on their own two feet right here on earth” (August, 16th 1967 in King’s speech “Where Do We Go From Here?” delivered at the 11th Annual SCLC Convention in Atlanta, Ga). In the past, and in the future, science can inspire us to see beyond what we are faced with in our now.
Johnson told us that it definitely matters who does science. Pure scientific objectivity is a myth, and all research has inherent subjective influences. Who does the research dictates what questions get asked, how we interpret those observations, and what do we do with this information. In fact, science was infused with morality prior to the 19th century. Scientific objectivity is a more recent notion, instigated by the emergence of technology (microphotography, x-ray) which altered our perception and gave us the possibility of objectivity. Johnson argues that there is a value of having a broader participation in science in order to understand the world in all of it’s complexities.
One example is the contemporary struggle of rethinking female biology. Previously, menstruation was framed from a place of loss, a mechanism of discarding of unfertilized/useless eggs, or a monthly discarding of uterine lining (whose purpose goes unfulfilled). Margie Profet (UC Berkeley, evolutionary biologist) challenged this concept with a set of analyses that described the process as one that evolved as a mechanism for protecting the uterus and fallopian tubes against harmful microbes delivered by sperm. Profet said the “body kills potentially infected tissue and eliminates it.” Johnson offered us the quote by Walter Lippman “where all men think alike, no one thinks very much.” Despite the ignorant exclusion of anyone who is not a man, I think Lippman’s quote illustrates Johnson’s argument fairly well. Diversity must have both communication and inclusion to be effective–as we have seen, miscommunication across diverse perspectives can have dire consequences. The $125 million Mars orbiter was destroyed when some of the programmers thought the units in use were pounds, while the others thought the units were Newtons.
Johnson advised that scientists must become politically and socially engaged; they should work with technology and social media to generate interest and awareness of scientific findings and questions. Professor Johnson’s eloquent talk on the necessity of science and the pertinence of diversity of scientists was inspiring, motivational, and persuasive. She was engaging and definitely made me recognize how much scientific endeavors have given to all of our individual lives, and also the extent that science will be all we have in the coming years facing climate change.