Allies or oppressors?Exploring science through a feminist lens

Is science an ally of the feminist movement, or has it absorbed the prejudices of its practitioners and become oppressive towards women and other marginalized genders?

“It’s a complex relationship,” says Professor Obeid Siddiqui and Gita Chadha of the Department of History and Culture of Science at the National Center for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bangalore.

“In feminist science studies, there are different versions of how we engage with science. The women’s movement continues to see science as an ally, but it is also deeply problematic and oppressive.” We also recognize that it can become a thing,” she said.

Professor Chadha had a conversation with NCBS neuroscientist Professor Hiya Ghosh on “Feminist Perspectives in Science.” The event was organized by NCBS and Champaca Bookstore in conjunction with the International Day of Women and Girls in Science on February 11.

History of feminist scientific research

Feminist scientific research emerged in the mid-1980s as a powerful critique of the professional practice of science, which until then had been conducted primarily from a male perspective. Although science and its practitioners often claim to be neutral and objective, history shows that this is not the case. Various streams of science reflected the cultural and social biases of experts and often justified social stereotypes about gender.

“Somewhere in the struggle for fairness and equality, women have come to understand the underlying idea that inequalities are biologically justified, gender differences, and even that biological basis is an extension of patriarchy. “I realized that there was a belief that there was. I think that’s probably why feminists felt the need and the urgency to engage with science,” Professor Chadha said.

Delving into the history of perceptions of science and its changes, Professor Chadha pointed out that science has been considered an institution of modernity and progress, but that different perceptions began to emerge after World War II. .

“Sociologists have made it clear to science that everything, including politics and religion, has a social cause, but science does not have a social cause.”

“But somewhere after Manhattan, a pacifist perspective on what science is doing – is it really delivering on what it promises, or is it doing something else?” “A critical approach started. We started recognizing that there are social determinants of science,” she said.

The Manhattan Project is the name given to the U.S. government’s research and development to produce nuclear weapons during World War II.

While this was an important shift in thinking about science, another shift occurred in feminist theory.

“To develop feminist scientific research, we needed to understand that gender not only shapes who we are as people of different genders, but also shapes the way we think… We needed to make this shift in understanding to question the impact,” Professor Chadha said, adding that the history of feminist science lies not only in feminist theory but also in the women’s movement.

She pointed out that while this was mostly the case in the West, a third thing had to happen in India.

“We needed to see whether Western models of development needed to be questioned from a postcolonial perspective. When we started doing that, feminist scientific research in India grew It was possible.”

where are the women?

Professor Chadha pointed out that the field is developing in four directions, the first being questioning the underrepresentation of women in science. While adding that India’s current statistics are good with women accounting for 35-40% of basic science positions, including undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral level, she said that most of the women in the ranks are similar. He put forward the important observation that people have a class and caste background.

“Our second important question is: What has science done to develop theories about sex and gender, and how has it justified certain social stereotypes about gender? ”

“The third question is how does science detect nature? Historically, it has been noted that as science developed, so did the feminization of nature. “Nature obeys law. ”, referring to nature as “she”, extremely violent language regarding the control of nature… At the same time, women were also being controlled. and violated. We feminists want to understand this equation,” said Professor Chadha, adding how the FSS is also investigating the scientific method.

self-correcting science

Professor Hiya Ghosh, who also participated in the conversation, agreed that science has historically had biases, mostly unconscious ones, that influence study design, cohort selection, and inferences.

However, Professor Ghosh added that science is self-correcting.

“The scientific environment and scientific interpretations for many years have been influenced by the biased and male-dominated society in which we live. That influence subconsciously influences science and scientific outcomes. But science self-corrects itself.”

“It really depends on the methodology, the technology, the number of people doing the science, the strength of the progress in this field and its implementation. That is, over the years, beyond the fundamental laws, in any field of science the situation has only changed. As science has advanced, we have learned more. We have rewritten definitions and theories. This also applies to science as we view it from a feminist perspective. That’s true,” she said, adding that science is constantly improving to remain objective.

Advances in methodology

Professor Ghosh further pushed his point by giving an example of how research into the differences between male and female brains has previously been used to explain behavioral differences between the sexes.

“If you look at a lot of this back data through the lens of new technologies that not only re-do the measurements but also rethink the normalization methods, you’ll see exactly the opposite from the same data. If you’re a true scientist, male or female, feminist or not, if you’re constantly following methodological advances and challenging the data itself, you must do it. That’s true. Let’s see what’s true.”

She emphasized that she believes science has the ability to show people the truth, and also said that there are vast fields of science where research is carried out at the molecular and cellular level, where gender issues become almost non-existent. .

“It clearly exists in other fields, like evolutionary biology. From the time of Charles Darwin to the present, it matters who is asking the questions.”

We need to break down the silos

Speakers also emphasized the importance of integrating social science content education into science curricula and vice versa.

Noting that every lesson in sociology begins with the methods of sociology, including the history of the field and the philosophical underpinnings behind each theory and paradigm, Professor Chadha explains how it always works within the field. explained changes in knowledge and identified the origins of the field. in historical, social and cultural contexts.

She says it would make a big difference if the same thing could be done in science.

“It will help people working in science recognize that the scholarship and knowledge they create and teach is rooted in and changing society’s historical and political context.”

“The reverse is also important. We don’t teach enough science to social scientists. It may not be an instrumental way to pursue a career, but it’s a very intellectual way to bring the flow together.” It needs to be done in a way that… we need to move towards more integrated education across silos,” she said.