The Disturbing Deterioration of Scientific American's Reputation
Written on
Scientific American has recently published a scathing article about one of America's prominent biologists and conservationists, shortly after his passing. This incident reflects a troubling decline in the magazine’s standards over recent years.
Founded in 1845, Scientific American holds the title of the oldest science magazine in the United States, featuring contributions from numerous Nobel laureates. Among its notable contributors was Edward O. Wilson, an esteemed biologist often regarded as the modern-day successor to Darwin. Wilson passed away on December 26, 2021, and his groundbreaking ideas have greatly shaped contemporary understanding of ecology and biology.
In my search for insights into Wilson's work following his death, an article titled "The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson" appeared in my results. Subtitled "We must reckon with his and other scientists’ racist ideas if we want an equitable future," it presented a damaging portrayal of this influential scientist.
To my shock, the source of this piece was none other than Scientific American.
Accusations of racism carry significant weight. The article accused Wilson of harboring racist beliefs, yet he was unable to defend himself after his death. Such serious claims, especially from a prestigious scientific publication, can tarnish a person's reputation and legacy.
What evidence supported these accusations? None was provided. The author failed to include any direct quotes from Wilson that could substantiate her claims. In fact, she noted on Twitter, “I purposively didn’t quote his work so you could read it for yourself.” This raises serious questions.
Let's delve deeper into the claims made in this controversial article. The author began by asserting that Wilson's field is riddled with racism.
> “Wilson was hardly alone in his problematic beliefs. His predecessors — mathematician Karl Pearson, anthropologist Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel and others — also published works and spoke of theories fraught with racist ideas.”
While Pearson and Galton were proponents of eugenics, it is misleading to label Charles Darwin as a supporter of Social Darwinism. The inclusion of Gregor Mendel, who dedicated his life to studying pea plants in a monastery, seems particularly unfounded unless he specifically claimed that one color of peas was superior to another. This highlights the author's apparent focus on genetics.
Wilson’s contributions to sociobiology, which seeks to explain behavior through the lens of evolution and genetics, have been influential, applying to both animals and humans.
The author expressed disdain for one of Wilson's key works.
> “His influential text ‘Sociobiology: The New Synthesis’ contributed to the false dichotomy of nature versus nurture and spawned an entire field of behavioral psychology grounded in the notion that differences among humans could be explained by genetics, inheritance and other biological mechanisms.”
Essentially, the author’s argument hinges on the assertion that Wilson favored nature over nurture in the behavioral debate. Why is it controversial to acknowledge the role of genetics in behavior? While the extent of genetic influence can be debated, Wilson himself explored the complex interplay of genes and culture in shaping behavior.
Despite the flawed logic, the author invoked geneticist J. Craig Venter to support her claims about inherent racism within genetics.
> “Even modern geneticists and genome scientists struggle with inherent racism in the way they gather and analyze data. In his memoir ‘A Life Decoded: My Genome: My Life,’ geneticist J. Craig Venter writes, ‘The complex provenance of ideas means their origin is often open to interpretation.’”
However, this statement does not directly relate to the charges leveled against Wilson.
The article continued with dubious claims regarding statistical norms.
> “First, the so-called normal distribution of statistics assumes that there are default humans who serve as the standard that the rest of us can be accurately measured against. The fact that we don’t adequately take into account differences between experimental and reference group determinants of risk and resilience, particularly in the health sciences, has been a hallmark of inadequate scientific methods based on theoretical underpinnings of a superior subject and an inferior one.”
This interpretation of normal distribution is misguided. Normal distribution reflects how population characteristics cluster around a mean, not a hierarchy of humans.
The author referenced additional theories that further convoluted her argument.
> “Other scholars have pointed out that feminist standpoint theory is helpful in understanding white empiricism and who is eligible to be a worthy observer of the human condition and our world.”
This marked the first time I encountered the term "white empiricism," prompting me to investigate further. The associated study presented even more perplexing assertions.
> “White empiricism undermines a significant theory of twentieth-century physics: General Relativity. Albert Einstein’s monumental contribution to our empirical understanding of gravity is rooted in the principle of covariance, which is the simple idea that there is no single objective frame of reference that is more objective than any other.”
The author then questioned why string theorists advocate for an end to empiricism rather than racial hegemony, suggesting knowledge production in physics is contingent upon the identities of the physicists involved.
> “Through the recognition of white empiricism, a bifurcated logic that serves white supremacist traditions in science while deontologizing marginalized Black women physicists, I propose that the Black feminist theory intersectionality should change physics — and not just through who becomes a physicist but through the actual outcomes of what we come to know.”
Such claims raise profound questions. While promoting diversity in science is crucial, the laws governing the universe do not shift based on one's identity.
Reading this, I couldn't help but recall the case of Alan Sokal, a physics professor who demonstrated the absurdity of post-modernist discourse by submitting a fictitious essay that was nonetheless accepted for publication.
> “Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity.”
Unlike Sokal's work, the claims made in the aforementioned article are unfortunately real.
Lessons from History: Lysenkoism and the Suppression of Genetics
In the early 1930s, the Soviet Union was a leader in genetics research, making significant advancements in understanding heredity and behavior. This period also saw the arrival of prominent scientists like Hermann J. Muller, who relocated to Leningrad in 1933.
However, this was also a time of increasing repression under Stalin, culminating in the rise of Lysenkoism, which rejected established genetic theory. Muller left in 1937, but many others faced dire consequences. In 1948, genetics was denounced as a "bourgeois pseudoscience," resulting in the persecution of scientists who challenged this view.
Following Stalin's death in 1953, the ban on genetics was lifted, yet the historical lesson remains clear: science must not be shackled by political ideologies from any end of the spectrum. As Charles A. Leone articulated:
> “Science cannot long remain unfettered in a social system which seeks to exercise control over the whole spiritual and intellectual life of a nation. The correctness of a scientific theory can never be adjudged by its readiness to give the answers desired by political leadership.”
Regrettably, the United States appears to be ignoring this lesson. Science faces attacks from radical ideologues on both the right and left, particularly in biology and genetics, leading to a troubling culture of self-censorship.
This is a perilous trajectory. Many previously apolitical scientific journals are now adopting ideologies that could hinder critical discourse and research, ultimately stifling scientific inquiry and human progress.
The True Legacy of E. O. Wilson
Demeaning E. O. Wilson does a disservice to marginalized communities. Wilson's expertise in biology and his significant contributions to environmental conservation are undeniable. Often referred to as "Darwin's heir," he was also dubbed the "father of biodiversity," advocating for the protection of diverse life forms.
Biodiversity is essential for the health of ecosystems, as noted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which states that biodiversity is “essential to the existence and proper functioning of all ecosystems.” The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted our interconnectedness, reinforcing the need to preserve biodiversity for various benefits, including medicine and mental health.
Wilson championed these causes through initiatives like the Half-Earth Project, which aims to designate half of the planet for wildlife conservation. He famously remarked:
> “It’s been in my mind for years, that people haven’t been thinking big enough — even conservationists. Half Earth is the goal, but it’s how we get there, and whether we can come up with a system of wild landscapes we can hang onto.”
In interviews, Wilson emphasized the importance of safeguarding our planet:
> “If we want to know what is on this planet and why it is a live planet — what contributes to that life and what it all means, ultimately, for human existence — we should try to save it all.”
This is the true legacy of E. O. Wilson, and it is a cause worth fighting for. We cannot achieve this goal if we allow ideologies to suppress scientific exploration.