Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Equality in Science - The ways the wind blew when MLK had a dream

Equality between races and sexes is a long and storied debate. It isn't a single revolution by a single man, a campaign of suffrage in a single nation or parallel between fields. It is a progression of the tide, washing away the loose sands and weathering away the weakest of stones, leaving a bed rock representing the truths of ourselves. No single wave can move a beach, nor can any beach withstand centuries of exposure to the tide. Each wave, each tide will carry a grain with it out to sea, where it can settle and be forgotten from our memories. Martin Luther King Jr. was a tide marker, making millions aware now was when sands would be carried out to sea. We thank him for his courage in marking the times for us, but we should never forget, there were those before him that fought for equality and won, and people who came after him and still fight today. I want to present to you three people who helped expose the bedrock in science and set for people to follow, broke the social norms and laid a path for others like them to proceed into the hollowed courts of our greatest pursuit.

While many examples of black women and men breaking barriers down in modern society will be cheered for in the media, and I do pay tribute to Arnaldo Tamoya Méndez and Carol Moseley Braun, they have their equality thanks to many before them who fought for peer ship. Not all fit the image we have of pioneers on this day, but Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt of a time when race, gender and age wasn't taken into account, not just equality between black and white men. I will start by presenting to you a female scientists for the 18th Century, a period when theories on womens' place in society and relation to men ranged from total equality to complete inequality and included the Equal but Different line the world most famously knows from South Africa. It is a time when academic pursuits were seen as incompatible with the domestic duties expected of women.

Maria Margarethe Kirch was the first significant astronomer of her time, on top of being the only significant female astronomer at the time. What is impressive about her contribution to science doesn't only include her discovery of a comet, but the fact women were not allowed to attend universities at the time; Maria Kirch was taught by her father and her uncle. She later met her future husband, Gottfried Kirch through her employer, who gave her further instruction in astronomy. While she never attended the university, she would join Gottfried in his field work and many saw Maria Kirch as his assistant rather than equal. It wasn't until later in her career she was accepted as a peer, but several factors still limited her; she never was published in Germany's journal of science nor was she accepted into the German Royal Academy of Science. She was slighted by the Academy, when they replaced her recently departed husband with an inexperienced man; they Academy did not want to set a precedent by accepting her as a peer, but were happy to further insult her by suggesting she becomes her late husband's replacement's assistant. The British Royal Academy, in a wise decision, accepted her as a peer later in life. While she may not have rocked the boat, she quietly carried a handful of sand away and helped women in science by example. Her contributions to equality shouldn't be forgotten below the more brazen people who fought for equality before the public eye.

My next example is not a bold or difficult fight. I wish to illustrate the humble side of equality in science. During Martin Luther King Jr.'s most famous work, this man quietly contributed to academic pursuits as a physicist, graduating with a Ph.D. in the 30's. His gradual rise shows areas of our society were well on their way to the equality Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt about. Herman Brandson started his career in 1941 as an assistant professor of physics and chemistry at Howard University. He worked at Howard University for 27 years, becoming the head of the physics department, program director and working for the Office of Naval Research and Atomic Energy Commission Projects in Physics at Howard University. This is all during the riots, protests and civil liberty demonstrations that mark Martin Luther King Jr.'s contribution to equality. Herman Brandson shows us, it isn't great minds who make the greatest of progress, but it is the progress made by each and every individuals', accumulating with the contributions of others, that drives the tide. Every choice you make every day can help or hinder the tide.

Contemporary physicists come from a rich background. To pick one is futile in proving anything about equality in science today for the individual. Instead, this example in an entire field. Physics today is blind to race, where ideas are presented and tested, with no prejudice over who came up with the idea first. While many laboratories can be profiled, the ideas these laboratories work with today come from every part of the world, where small parts contribute to grander theories. No one part can be removed without collapsing a theory as a whole and no one nation leads the pack. The call of science has helped transplant many families who carry with them the ideas and concepts we cherish so. It has helped drive multi-cultural societies for centuries and brought us out of the dark ages when all we saw were the grains of sand the privileged relaxed on. Each physicist today brings a small hand full of sand out to sea to be forgotten. On this day, when we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr., please take a moment to celebrate those who have worked towards his dream, one grain at a time.

-Servus


Monday, January 23, 2012

The Quick Three - Evolution of Science

Marie Curie was turned down by the French Academy because she was a woman from Poland. Word went around she also was Jewish. Science back then was a gentleman's pursuit and the French were as stubernly nationalistic as we assume they are today, if not more so. There were short sighted assumptions about her abilities because other felt they knew better. These people also control the progress and direction of the sciences. If people today hold these same assumptions - they knew best - when setting limits on others, then the task carried out by institutions will be to limit and prevent good science.

Research related to deadlier flu virii has been put on hold at the behest of the scientific community. The researchers are open to debate on the ethics and risks involved. People can take sides. I will take the side of free speech and free access over censorship and restriction. One should not be restricted because one was born with a skin color, name or to parents of a centain nationality, yesterday's gender. However, the researchers did not help their own cause by saying they use the highest security standards (they do not) or by pausing it for only sixty days. Opponents are not helping their case by stating they do not need to hear from the researchers involved, but the researchers must hear from the opponents. Both sides are taking the low road.
Big Think

However, even though censorship looms large, why bother? A study in National Geographic points out scientists do far more informal censorship than any current law. Arthur Caplan could learn a thing or two. This is something many do not see happen.

Well, that is all for today. Cya tomorrow, maybe.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Censorship and Science

Arthur Caplan authored an opinion piece for CNN which advocated censorship in Science. While there is a strong backlash against the arguments he advocated and, disappointingly, strong support for, all three sides, the author, advocates and opponents, misses established ethical practices that already addresses concerns about potential harm from research. While I will acknowledge Arthur Caplan's fears about a terrorist in a well funded lab, or perhaps Iran, creating a flu virus that can result in a wildfire if released, I must point out to Caplan his reaction to his fears infringes on rights of individuals to both collect and develop knowledge, share and collaborate work as a form of free speech and stifles scientific progress by giving the keys to knowledge to a single authority, preventing scientists from advancing others' work.

Established ethical practices also prevent the release of truly damaging information by either self censorship or refusal to develop the knowledge. These practices are taught in universities and are by themselves subjects with project, research papers and majors for degrees. Aspiring scientists are taught the norms of ethical practice that range from the ethics of plagiarisation to the harm of weapons research. This is the only effective safe guard against the fears Arthur Caplan has expressed; scientists who disagree with the government will always continue their theoretical work which has the same potential harm as a scientist at the CDC with a grudge against the powers that be. Embracing them into the fold of good ethics works.

This study of ethics is a doubled edge sword for any government that wants to develop weapons; many scientists who worked on the first nuclear bomb would never have joined the project if they had known for ethical reasons. However, these same ethics also prevent the scientific establishment from cooperating with terrorists or rouge states. However, handing the keys over to the government wouldn't dull the edge Arthur Caplan intends. When the government is in control of access to knowledge, the government can also require scientists prove their loyalty or harmlessness, which can include working on government projects involving bio-weapons, chemical weapons or nuclear weapons. Michio Kaku's pinnacle, where humanity, my generation, will know if we survive the transition from a type zero civilization to a type one, categorizes these as serious threats to our transition. If the government were to censor science by means of security clearance, the very fears Caplan has would come much closer to reality.

Therefor Arthur Caplan, I must urge you to reconsider your opinion, renounce it and support the individual scientist's and journal's autonomy in ethical decisions.