Science, Human Rights, and Responsibility
Bowler Hat Science from Matthew R Francis
One of my biggest science-writing influences is the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002). He had the enviable position of writing a monthly magazine column where he could choose his topics, something any writer aspires to (as long as they get paid well for it). As a Jewish American, the grandchild of immigrants, and amateur historian, he knew the tentative nature of civil rights in a culture dominated by white supremacy. I think often of this quote from an essay published in the early 1990s:
Science can supply information as input to a moral decision, but the ethical realm of “oughts” cannot be logically specified by the factual “is” of the natural world—the only aspect of reality that science can adjudicate. As a scientist, I can refute the stated rationale for Nazi evil and nonsense. But when I stand against Nazi policy, I must do so as everyman—as a human being. For I win my right to engage moral issues by my membership in Homo sapiens—a right vested in absolutely every human being who has ever graced this earth, and a responsibility for all who are able.
[reprinted in "Dinosaur in a Haystack", 1995]
One particular reason this passage stays relevant for me is the massive attacks on trans people in the United States, with hundreds of bills that have been passed or being considered. Everything from book bans to preventing trans kids from playing sports criminalize the public existence of trans people of all ages, but particular target vulnerable children. Additionally, some of my nominal science writing colleagues — Jesse Singal and Azeen Ghorayshi, to name just two — have chosen to wield their credentials to hurt trans people in the name of "science".
Ghorayshi is particularly angering for me, because during her time working at Buzzfeed she did excellent work exposing sexual harassment in the scientific community. Since moving to the New York Times, however, she has been a big part of that paper's heavy anti-trans bias, to the point of potentially unethical journalistic behavior in exposing a young trans person and their family in a piece sympathetic to right-wing attacks on a St. Louis gender health clinic. In that and other NYT pieces, Ghorayshi lent credence to the lies that trans healthcare is unsettled science, and in particular gender-related healthcare is harmful to children.
As trans science journalist Riley Black writes, "allies respond to inane and hateful transphobic statements by trying to talk about the science themselves", which still makes it sound like the debate is over science and not over human rights. She continues, "By engaging in the back-and-forth at all, allies are buying into the idea that there needs to be a scientifically justified reason for trans people like me to have the same rights as everyone else." (In the interests of full disclosure, Riley is one of my first science-writer friends, in addition to being one of my favorite paleontology writers.)
In other words, as Riley and Gould both write, we can talk about the scientific basis for human rights, but our responsibility as human beings is to fight for those rights, simply because it is a moral imperative. We science writers aren't supposed to talk about morality and suchlike, because it shows "bias" (I've had articles rejected for that reason), even as other science writers pen blatantly anti-rights pieces as though they're straightforward reporting.
Neutrality plays into the hands of the powerful, and the powerful in this case — whether it's Christian supremacist politicians or editors and writers at the New York Times — aren't on the side of human rights. If journalists, including science writers, take a both-sides-in-every-debate-are-equal approach to the lives of our fellow human beings, we fail in our responsibility as members of Homo sapiens.
And Now For Something Completely Different
I'm busy working on no fewer than three deadlines, so without further ado, here's my old man cat Pascal enjoying the fresh air after his old man vet visit last week:
Bowlerhattishly thine,
Matthew
Support me: