Including diversity in science and engineering means more than
including different
kinds of information. It also means introducing different perspectives
and different ways
of knowing, which means introducing conflicting views, theories and
practices. The
disciplines are build-up around more than different types of knowledge.
There is more to
different disciplines than the focus of the study - plants in botany,
cell structure and
function in molecular biology, atoms and subatomic particles in physics,
bridge building
in civil engineering, social structures and roles in sociology. There are
also different
methodologies and epistemologies. Different ways of knowing; different
ways of collecting
and weighing evidence, different types of authority. There is also more
to difference than
diversity. There is power. It is said that knowledge is power. In our
society and around
the world, different types of knowledge hold different amounts and types
of power.
Transformation of the sciences and engineering challenges types of
knowledge and
structures that hold social power in place.
This paper will focus on epistemological discord between methods
and knowledge in
the sciences and feminist ways of knowing and experience. It’s easy
to get abstract
quickly in a discussion of epistemology. I want to stay as concrete as
possible because
theories of knowledge and ways of knowing are more than lofty concepts
discussed by
academics. All of us process information and make decisions every day and
the outcomes
depend on our experiences and backgrounds of gender, culture and
education. In a world of
many inequalities the diversity of kinds of knowledge and the ways in
which we acquire
this knowledge do not have the same value, prestige or authority. As
individuals we feel
the weight of other’s judgment of what we know and how we know it.
As participants in
efforts that initiate communication and exchange of knowledge across
rigid boundaries we
face many challenges. Crossing the epistemological boundaries of academic
and personal
cultures and disciplines is difficult and often treacherous.
I want to illustrate some of the challenges we face by describing
my personal
experience as a woman and a feminist in science. The concepts I will
address are
hierarchies of knowledge, science in a social context, the nature nurture
debate, the
politics of knowledge, and the value of human lives.
Hierarchies of
Knowledge
I grew up on a farm in Central Pennsylvania. When I applied to
college I chose to
study the only thing I knew - agriculture. My father, a farmer, attended
the undergraduate
freshman orientation with me. He went to a separate session where they
told him that
Animal Science was a rigorous science curriculum and the majors
maintained one of the
highest grade point averages in the university. When he reported this to
me, I felt a
sense of pride. While growing up, I faced the attitude among my high
school peers and
teachers that farmers, and rural people in general, were ignorant or
simple minded. We
were spoken to, treated, and referred to disrespectfully and
dismissively. In college, as
I took my courses in chemistry, biology, biochemistry, physics and
calculus I learned more
about hierarchies of knowledge. I learned that science students were
smarter, and
therefore better, than those in the social sciences and humanities. I
learned that science
was objective knowledge, based on facts. I learned that using the
scientific method with
rigorous experimental design and quantitative analysis was the supreme
way of learning
about the world. At that time, I enjoyed the elevated status of being a
student of
science. It was a soothing contrast to my previous depreciated
identity.
I grew up during the 1960s and was an undergraduate in the
early-mid 1970s.
Equality, freedom and justice were the ideals of the time. I grew up
hearing about the
civil rights movement, and then the women’s liberation movement. I
always identified
myself with those movements. The ideas immediately resonated with my
spirit and vision.
Feminist knowledge has its roots in validating women’s experiences
and giving names
to previously silenced or ignored knowledge and experiences. Through
feminism, experiences
and observations that resided in the margins of my consciousness and
awareness were given
names and clarity. Through feminism, I learned that subjective knowledge
held truth also.
I learned that the social sciences and humanities could give us analyses
and explanations
of the world equally as important as what I learned in science. I learned
there were
multiple ways of knowing.
Science in a Social
Context
The sciences are a social product. They have histories.
People and
governments
with political, economic and social agendas develop them. My Ph.D.
advisor was a
behavioral geneticist and a fan of Sir Francis Galton, the British
founder of modern
statistics, regression analysis, the disciplines of psychometry,
anthropometry and
behavioral genetics .... and eugenics. Inspired by my advisor’s
enthusiasm for Galton
I read more about this "creative genius," as he was called. I
learned that
Galton coined the term eugenics and envisioned a world where people would
marry and have
children based on their intellectual superiority. He wanted to guide the
human race in its
evolution. Galton had a dim view of women’s intelligence, abilities,
and their
evolutionary worth. As a woman it was hard for me to identify with a man
who had such a
low opinion of my sex. As the men in my program, who were his fans, were
reviewing
Galton’s experiments and data, I couldn’t imagine that as a
woman I would be
invited to sit and discuss his findings and theories.
I did keep reading about eugenics. Beyond the theory of eugenics
was the practice.
In Great Britain the practice of eugenics resulted in changes in
immigration laws to keep
out the inferior, which included Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. In the United
States the
practice of eugenics resulted in tens of thousands of people labeled
genetically inferior
being forcibly sterilized in institutions and prisons. In Nazi Germany
the practice of
eugenics was called racial hygiene and supported the extermination of
three groups of
people labeled inferior: people with disabilities, Gypsies and Jews.
I knew about the Holocaust, but I didn’t know about the
science that assisted
it in theory and practice. I didn’t know that the leading
geneticists of the time
developed eugenics. I was appalled that I could receive a Ph.D. in
genetics and never
learn about eugenics. It hadn’t been mentioned in any course, any
seminar, or any
conversation. I wondered how fit geneticists were today if they
didn’t know about the
history of their discipline, or the uses that had been made of their
science. I then
realized the importance of learning the history and social context of
science. To be a
responsible geneticist one needed to know about prejudice and oppression
and the social
and political goals of science. One needed to understand these dynamics
in history and the
contemporary world around us. For example, right before us is the human
genome project.
What use will be made of the information that comes from that? How will
we avoid future
disasters if we know nothing of the past?
I was teaching a course in human genetics in the biology
department at this time.
I still naively thought that someone had forgotten to tell me about
eugenics, that it was
left out of the curriculum because so many important things had to be
covered; that
everyone thought that someone else was teaching it. I soon discovered
that wasn’t the
case. When I told faculty members of my intention to include a lecture on
eugenics in my
human genetics course, I received frowns and looks of discomfort. I was
urged to leave it
out, or make only a brief mention of it at the end of the course. I then
realized that
eugenics hadn’t been accidentally left out of the curriculum, that
teaching about the
negative history of genetics was like airing science’s dirty
laundry. I also learned
that my colleagues were profoundly uncomfortable in discussing
discrimination or
inequalities, either past or present.
Nature or Nurture
The nature nurture debate about how much of who we are is
determined by our
biological makeup and how much is determined by what we learn in the
world in which we
live is a long, ongoing argument. Each side, while possibly giving lip
service to the
other, goes on researching and theorizing from their own perspective. The
disciplines are
structured in rigid ways that make this divide inevitable. Often
conversations between the
two are next to impossible.
As a graduate assistant in the genetics program I conducted
experiments on the
genetics of alcohol consumption in mice. Inbred strains of mice, which
are 99.9 percent
genetically similar, were used to assess the genetic influence on alcohol
intake. Two
inbred strains of mice, the C57Blks and the DBAs, consistently showed
profound differences
in their alcohol intake when offered the choice of water and a 10%
alcohol solution. The
C57Blks never failed to prefer alcohol to water. The DBAs never drank the
alcohol
solution. The difference was absolute, not mean differences. My advisor
was the pioneer of
this area of research. Long term studies he initiated demonstrated the
genetic influence
on alcohol consumption and tolerance to alcohol in mice. From a
genetically heterogeneous
stock of mice he selectively bred mice for preference and tolerance of
alcohol. There was
highly significant response to the selection experiments that
demonstrated that these
behaviors were quantitative genetic traits, meaning that they were not
due to single gene
effects, but to the combined effect of many genes.
As part of my developing feminism I started volunteering at the
local women’s
center for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. There I met a
lot of women and
teenagers who had survived years of abuse. I learned about the
circumstances of their
lives and how they used alcohol as a form of pain relief. They
self-medicated to numb the
emotional pain and escape the often daily horrors of their lives. It was
impossible for me
to connect the women’s consumption of alcohol with the mice in the
lab. I came to
appreciate the complex and compelling social influences on alcohol and
drug intake and
addiction.
I continued to volunteer at the women’s center and soon I
inhabited separate
worlds. My day work was based on scientific knowledge and the use of the
scientific method
as a way of knowing and learning about the world. My night work was based
on feminist
knowledge and empathy was the way of knowing and learning about the
world. I could not
connect the two worlds - cognitively or emotionally. They seemed
antithetical to each
other. The people who populated these different worlds were hostile to
the other. The one
world was unmentionable to the other. The few times I thought I had a
sympathetic ear I
was quickly frozen out. No one in the women’s center wanted to hear
about laboratory
experiments with mice, and no one in the lab wanted to hear about
battered women and
sexually abused children. Being caught between two unreconcilable worlds
is lonely,
alienating and deeply distressing. The only solution seemed to be to
choose one or the
other.
Politics of Scientific
Knowledge
As a result of my feminist enlightenment and readings on the
history of science I
learned that knowledge, even scientific knowledge, was created by people,
usually men,
who, at times, had strong political views. In addition, they used their
scientific
findings for political purposes.
As I progressed in my personal and professional development I
refused to let go of
either world I was occupying, although the going was getting rougher all
the time.
Eventually, I was teaching genetics and women’s studies
simultaneously. One day I
overheard a women’s studies student and campus activist say,
"Well, even if
scientists can prove there are biologically based gender differences
between men and
women, women can never accept them. You know they’ll just use them
against us."
I froze, rooted to the spot in the hallway, and my cognitive identity
split in two. The
geneticist and the feminist took up opposing positions and started to
argue. The scientist
scoffed at the woman, "Silly woman, she thinks she can put blinders
on and pretend
that facts don’t exist." The feminist righteously defended the
woman,
"She’s right. Every biological theory of gender ever created
has cast women as
the physical and intellectual inferiors to men." Eventually, I moved
on, but I walked
around for days with my two identities arguing with each other.
The Value of Human
Lives
As a student of genetics I learned about genetic disorders,
diseases and
syndromes. Mutations. For the past twenty years, science has been racing
with increasing
speed to locate genes, sequence them, and develop prenatal diagnostic
tests to detect
these defects. I was taught that this was progress. The liberation of
people from
suffering.
My sister’s best friend had cystic fibrosis. I remember the
day I told my
sister that there was a prenatal diagnostic test to detect whether a
fetus had cystic
fibrous. As a genetics student, I thought it was a wonderful piece of
news. My sister
looked at me in pain and confusion. Was I saying that her friend’s
life never should
have been? Or maybe my sister was threatened and worried about the
implications of this
attitude and science on her own sense of worth and well being. A few
years earlier, my
sister had been diagnosed with lupus, resulting in a life of tiredness,
pain and
increasingly serious complications. Lupus is an autoimmune disease, in
which the body, no
longer recognizes itself and attacks it’s own tissues, as if they
were harmful
invaders. The exact cause it still unknown, but there are genetic factors
involved. At
this point, I was forced to ask myself some questions about the value of
people’s
lives. Did the science I was studying respect those people who carried
those
"defective" genes? Or was it more closely aligned in attitude
to the eugenics of
the past?
When I was 38 years old, I was diagnosed with a genetically based
disorder. The
same year I was invited to be a participant in a conference on women and
the human genome
project. Helen Holmes, who conceived and organized the conference, did a
splendid job of
including diverse participants from scientific, medical, and disabled
communities, and
racial groups often targeted by racist science. It was a unique
opportunity for a diverse
gathering of women to listen and speak to each other. In the end the
participants,
especially those from the scientific and medical communities, could not
hear what those
from the disabled and racialized communities had to say. An
African-American spoke with
tears about the impact that research on "violence genes" might
have on her
community. A woman with achrondroplasia (dwarfism) spoke with great pain
about how people
like were not going to be allowed to exist.
We have arrived at a time in which some people again have the
power to decide
whether some "lives are worth living." Molecular techniques and
prenatal
diagnostic tests are telling us more and more about the fetuses women
carry. The genetic
counselors at the conference described their busy schedules in which they
had one hour to
explain to a woman (and frequently her partner) the origins, effects and
life implications
of a detected "defect" in a fetus. They tried to persuade all
of us that they
were "objective" and "non-judgmental" about their
positions and
counseling. But all of us knew what happened when a couple had one hour
of counseling and
was allowed one weekend to make their decision about an abortion –
almost all chose
the abortion.
When the woman with achrondroplasia cried out for some
reassurance
that people
like her were going to be allowed to exist, no one responded. There was
silence in the
room. After the conference at the airport, I asked one of the genetic
counselors why no
one responded. She answered honestly, "We’re compromised. I
routinely counsel
women on aborting achrondroplasic fetuses. But you have to understand;
most fetuses are
probably more severely effected than the women at the conference are. The
women here are
on a functional end of the continuum."
Judgements about the value of certain human lives are already
being made. The
Human Genome Project is going to give us increasingly more information
about our genes,
and more people with power over our lives are going to have access to
that information.
These issues should be discussed in every discipline in the university
from biological
sciences to philosophy. Science students need to have a social context
for considering the
use of their science, and humanities students need to understand enough
science to
evaluate the meaning and implications of the science.
Conclusion
These are the kinds of positions and arguments we will have while
trying to
transform the science and engineering with knowledge derived from the
social sciences, the
humanities, and more challenging, the feminist, civil rights,
lesbian/gay, and disability
rights movements. Especially when the knowledge comes out of social and
political
movements. As a feminist in science, who has education and experience on
both sides of
these debates, I find it hard to reconcile the two positions, especially
when I see value
in both.
Through my education and experience on these topics I’ve
discovered how
interconnected all of our disciplines are. To understand our complex
social, political and
natural world all of our disciplines are needed and communication among
them is necessary.
Constructing rigid boundaries between them is artificial, although doing
so protects
interests. It isolates people from the consequences of their work.
Scientists need to know
the history of their fields. They need to have some understanding of
social inequalities
and how their science might support those inequalities.
Through my education and experiences I have learned that
there are
different kinds
of knowledge and different ways of knowing. All have value and can tell
us different
things. They complement one another. The goal is not to replace one type
of knowledge with
another. If science is taught in a social context, or with an
understanding of how
scientific knowledge is political, subjectivity will not replace the
scientific method, as
some fear. Exchange of knowledge among scientists, humanists, engineers
and social
scientists challenges hierarchies of knowledge and knowledge that is
decontextualized and
depoliticized. The goal is a science that enhances and promotes diversity
and equality.
Today, I can’t say that I’ve resolved the personal
contradictions and
lack of coherence among things that I know, or how I know them, but
I’m not paralyzed
and I don’t doubt what I know. I have learned things in one culture
that are
incomprehensible to another. I have learned that some holders of
knowledge protect
themselves and their culture by keeping out different information and
ways of knowing. We
need more efforts and programs, such as curriculum transformation
projects to exchange
information among different academic cultures and bodies of knowledge,
and the communities
they impact. This cross-fertilization of ideas and information enhances
scholarship in all
the disciplines. It also promotes social justice for all.
