rom now on, scientists studying race or sex as a variable have to justify why
they're doing it when they send articles to Nature magazine.
The editors have published another mea-but-mostly-youa culpa, claiming that “People of colour are affected by discrimination in education, at work and elsewhere.” Therefore, authors must “describe how demographic characteristics, including sex and gender, are considered in the design of studies—and, more broadly, to consider the research's potential to cause harm.” They also have to explain how they would control for confounding variables such as socioeconomic status and explain why the classification is needed. I would hazard a guess that just saying “NIH told us we have to do it; ask them!” won't be sufficient.
This is a big deal in science. NIH forces us to fill out a spreadsheet stating exactly how many people of each race and each sex we've recruited for every human study. If the numbers don't match those in the population, we have to have a darn good explanation. And heaven help us if we say we'll only study mice of one sex, even if we're studying a sex-linked disorder.
If Nature is sincere, it might help put an end to those fake claims about the existence and prevalence of “structural racism.” These claims are never proven, because they cannot be. Structural racism is simply defined into existence by equating it with disparate outcomes, however they happen to occur. That is the opposite of science, where we're supposed to actually figure out the reason something happens.
I described a few of these papers before, and I'm not going to read more of them. They are a blight on science. The question is: why do they get written in the first place? Are the authors so caught up in ideology that they don't care about the truth? Or is it a flaw in how science is rewarded?
One need not look hard to find evidence for the latter. The NIH Program Announcements, or PAs, tell you in exact detail what NIH, the biggest funder of biomedical research in the USA, will and will not fund. They have 374 PAs on “equity,” 63 on racism, 1073 on diversity, and 1336 on inclusion. Examples:
RFG-DA-23-031
NIDA REI: Racial Equity Visionary Award Program for Research at Minority Serving Institutions on Substance Use and Racial Equity (DP1 Clinical Trial Optional)OD
Administrative Supplements to Promote Diversity in Small Businesses-SBIR/STTR (Admin Supp Clinical Trial Not Allowed)
That second one is from the OD (Office of the Director). The NIH gives out money to companies to promote “diversity.” This is social engineering, not science.
To the naive, the word ‘equity’ might sound like something nice. The idea is that jobs and funding are like candy to be handed out in the playground: everybody must get the same amount. The underlying belief is that forcing an equal result will make everybody equally talented, and if it doesn't it's because of racism. What actually happens is that it causes resentment in all groups, who correctly see the system as unfair even as they benefit from it. How would it feel knowing you got a grant because somebody has to fill a racial quota instead of because your science is good? What would you think of a system that throws out someone on the verge of curing cancer so they can check a box? You'd probably think they must be guilty of something and you'd adjust your view of the world to justify it.
If you look only at K grants, which are training grants for early stage investigators, it seems that the majority of them are intended to promote diversity. PAR-22-296, "NCI Mentored Research Scientist Development Award to Promote Diversity (K01 Clinical Trial Required)" is typical.
I asked two early-stage investigators from different parts of Asia why they didn't apply for a K grant. Their responses were the same: they are ineligible because Asians, whether from China, Japan, or India, are not considered diverse. One of these investigators was still in awe about this magical thing called “freedom.” She got all starry-eyed when I told her about our jury system. She knew little else about America, but already she knew what diversity really meant and that she was not ‘diverse.’
Indeed, according to Science magazine, 103 Chinese-born US faculty members have lost their jobs for collaborating with colleagues in China as the NIH wanted them to do. The magazine estimates that 156 were taken off their NIH grants—a career-destroying move given the euphemism ‘administrative action’—and others have been banned from receiving NIH funding.
There's no indication they were creating any new deadly viruses. But after working for four years in academia and seeing how faculty members write anonymous poison pen letters to sabotage their competitor's grants, how administrators never tell the truth about anything, and witnessing the devastating effects this has on morale, I'm not surprised. It works like this: NIH or the Signing Official [the most feared person at a university, whose job consists of writing his name on a piece of paper once a year], cancels someone's grant. Then the Dean looks at the researcher with a straight face and complains that he's not bringing in any grants. It might sound incredible, but I've seen it happen.
Science quotes one researcher who managed to survive this scenario, apparently working in that rare university that supports its faculty, as saying “I used to work very hard. Now, sometimes, I wonder what was the point of all the effort I made.”
Indeed. Why would anyone try to cure a disease in such a Kafkaesque environment? I was just a kid in the 1960s when racial discrimination was abolished. I would never have believed how quickly it would come back and spread through America. Government-mandated racial discrimination is incompatible with meritocracy. Eventually it will have to be all one or the other. Yes, there's an excuse. They always find some excuse.
If the second-wokest science mag in Christendom can figure out that it's a problem, maybe there's some hope. On the other hand, the phrase “the research's potential to do harm” is often used as a coded expression for “coming to an unapproved conclusion.” So Nature might be trying to make things worse. If so, and if there's any justice in the world, they will fail.
apr 17 2023, 4:05 am. edited for brevity apr 18 2023
