Science & Anti-Racism. Part 2.

This is written by Sophie, with support and critique from the Science London collective. 

Yesterday, we discussed the many ways in which science works to construct a racist World. The post was by no means exhaustive, but just used some examples to help those who need it to see science in a more realistic light that isn’t just about objectivity, reliability, fair tests and logical reasoning. 

So up until this point, we’ve been thinking more about recognising science as a racist system, but today we are going to think about the role we play in that system when we work as scientists, science communicators, public engagement people, or curators / programmers in science museums or galleries. 

So how is this relevant to my work in science, science engagement or communication? 

I am writing this post assuming that anyone who reads it is somewhat interested in the interface between people and science. In other words - I’m assuming that you either talk to people (could be your friends and family, could be public audiences) about the work you do as a scientist, or that your work is specifically aimed at increasing engagement in / visibility of science and its outcomes/impacts/issues/processes. 

(Yes, you’re right in thinking that pretty much includes anyone who is either a scientist or who works in any organisation that addresses science/technology in any way.) 

So my point is, that pretty much everyone who has something to do with science, also has a role in creating the way that it is portrayed to, and experienced by, other people. And actually, that is quite a big responsibility. This big responsibility is the reason why anti-racism is really really relevant to your work, because unless you actively attempt to identify and deconstruct the racism that is science, you are just reinforcing that system. 

Often, what lures people to working in science or science communication is the idea that science is “important to everyone”, that it’s “relevant to everyone” and so “everyone should engage with and enjoy it”. 

Even if you are trying to bring science to “everyone”, there’s a chance you’re doing it in a way that is actually excluding people from it. 

In your work, you must consider that everyone has a different relationship with science, a different view of science, and a different lived experience of science. And probably unsurprisingly at this point, those experiences, views and relationships are often impacted by race.

For example, if you are white and British (like I am) then science has most likely historically benefitted you, and has been designed around things to make your life easier. You will also probably know a lot of people who work in science, since science is full of white people and if you’re white then the chances are that a lot of your friends are too.  

But if you’re Black or Minority Ethnic, then the history of science might not be something that has always benefited you. Instead it might not have recognised your culture's form of scientific knowledge, or caused the deaths, harm and discrimination of people like you. You might see science as very unrepresentative of your community, unwelcoming and blind to your opinions, issues and struggles. 

If you work in science, science communication or science engagement and you’re not aware of these different experiences and don’t learn about and explore them, but instead put your effort into explaining that “science is everywhere” and “for everyone”, you are erasing the racist past of science, and in doing so, enabling it to continue to be racist today. 

So, unless you critically assess each of the events you run...

Who’s idea was it? Who was invited? Who wasn’t invited? Who was employed? Who wasn’t employed? Who volunteered? Who does it serve?

...or the work that you publish...

Who was the funder? Who wrote the application? Who’s on the team? How will the research be used? Who will benefit? Who will pay the cost? Who has already paid the cost in the past? Who is acknowledged?

… then your inherent blind spots (which, if you’re white are really big and numerous) will mean that this lack of critical engagement reinforces structures of racism. Something that I’m sure you didn’t set out to do - but something that you have to work very hard not to do. 

More thoughts coming later this week about the next step… and the follow up question - “so what do I do?”. We’ll be sharing resources, listening, reading material and opening up the conversation to get involved.