Socially Just Science Brendan P

2 2

Socially Just Science Brendan P. Foht

ith campuses rife with whether and when science is good or trigger warnings and bad for the search for justice. Wsome social justice activ- The book’s title refers to a relic of ists demanding the suppression of Galileo’s actual finger that Dreger ideas that fall outside a narrow win- saw on a trip to Italy as a gradu- dow of politically correct opinion, ate student, the symbolic import of there seems to be a growing rift which is rather obvious. Galileo, for between the ideology of progressives Dreger, stood up for truth, objec- and the ideal of free inquiry, including tivity, and facts, often in an abra- scientific inquiry. But according to a sive and arrogant manner, against new book from Alice Dreger, Galileo’s what Dreger anachronistically calls Middle Finger, the activists need the “Catholic identity politics.” Rather scientists: “justice and thus moral- than assuming “authorities know ity require the empirical pursuit,” what they’re talking about,” Galileo and the smooth operation of science made the case “for finding truth requires justice. Dreger, a bioethicist together through the quest for facts.” and historian of sci- Dreger contends that ence at Northwestern Galileo’s Middle Finger: when, in our own day, University, makes this Heretics, Activists, and the Search scientists collect evi- argument largely by for Justice in Science dence that points us By Alice Dreger recounting her own toward counterintui- Penguin ~ 2015 ~ 337 pp. activism and scholar- $27.95 (cloth) tive conclusions with ship, both on behalf of consequences that are oppressed minorities against the difficult to accept — for example, the medical community, and on behalf of idea that our understanding of the persecuted academics against activ- distinction between the sexes is root- ists who put “identity politics” ahead ed more in social construction than of the pursuit of truth. The rous- in biology — then we should follow ing stories of slander, injustice, and Galileo’s example by encouraging vindication are told in a witty and our interlocutors to “think harder.” charming style. But the focus on However, Galileo was not only a particular episodes of libel and injus- great scientist but also a somewhat tice leaves little room for the big- irreverent and quarrelsome figure. ger questions Dreger poses about Dreger describes these traits as the

Spring 2015 ~ 127

“Galilean personality,” embodied by might serve the interests of jus- scientists who boldly confront ortho- tice and democracy. Science chal- doxy without much concern for the lenges and overturns the false beliefs threat of persecution, to say nothing that those in power use as tools of the common politeness that would of oppression. Some philosophers of cause most people to forgo directly science, notably Karl Popper, have challenging other people’s cherished advanced a similar view, arguing that beliefs. Some scholars, most famous- the “critical attitude” is at the heart ly Leo Strauss, have argued that of both the scientific enterprise and philosophy has long been shaped the “open society.” For Dreger, sci- by the threat of persecution, which ence goes beyond subjecting claims has led philosophers to conceal the about the natural world or political ways in which their ideas challenge proposals to rational criticism; in or subvert the traditional morality fact, Galileo’s new science was “a of their communities. Philosophers revolution in human identity” and was used dialogues and other literary “fundamentally a shift in what we can forms to conceal their true teach- know about ourselves” (emphases in ings “between the lines.” Galileo, original). But what Galileo taught us too, wrote a dialogue, in which he about ourselves was that we are less almost literally called the Pope an significant than we believed, and that idiot — not exactly a sensible way to “we humans are on just another whiz- avoid persecution. Perhaps it is this zing planet — not a special, still place rejection of authority and indiffer- made for us by an attentive biblical ence to persecution that distinguishes God.” Whatever value Galileo’s criti- modern science from philosophy, and cal attitude may have for democracy, not, for instance, a turn to empirical it seems that the Church’s teaching methods — after all, in this very dia- about human significance is a better logue Galileo famously praised those foundation for democracy and human who “have through sheer force of rights than the claims about human intellect done such violence to their insignificance implied by the findings own senses as to prefer what reason of modern science. Such fundamental told them over that which sensible questions about the moral implica- experience plainly showed them to tions of the findings of modern sci- the contrary.” On this view, modern ence are only hinted at, and certainly science is not just a quest for facts not answered, in Dreger’s book. but is also characterized by a set of attitudes toward authority, dogma- reger’s view that science and tism, and orthodoxy. Dsocial justice require each Such an interpretation of Galileo’s other — that is, that a just system is significance points to how science needed to do science, and that science

128 ~ The New Atlantis

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. Socially Just Science is necessary to “know how to cre- After recalling her intersex activ- ate a sustainably just system” — is ism, Dreger turns to her involvement based on her own experiences as in the controversy over Northwestern both an activist and a scholar. Dreger University psychologist J. Michael recounts four major episodes that Bailey’s 2003 book The Man Who contributed to her understanding of Would Be Queen. Bailey’s book sought the relationship between science and to popularize University of Toronto justice: two stories of activism, in psychiatry professor Ray Blanchard’s which Dreger worked to change the theories that sexual orientation can way doctors treated patients with explain a great deal of transsexu- ambiguous sex characteristics, and ality. According to Blanchard and two stories of what might be called Bailey, particularly effeminate homo- “anti-activism,” in which she stood sexual men can become transgen- up for beleaguered scientists under dered, often as an adjustment to attack by activists upset with the pressure from homophobic societies. implications of the scientists’ work (Dreger mentions Iran as one repres- for our understanding of human sive society where sex changes are nature. used to “‘straighten out’ homosexual The first major episode Dreger desires” — in fact, Iran reportedly per- recounts involves her activism on forms the second-highest number of behalf of intersex people — the term sex change operations in the world.) used today for “hermaphrodites,” or More troublesome to the transgen- individuals born with ambiguous der community, however, was the sex characteristics. After some inter- idea advanced by these scientists that sex activists contacted her about other men seeking to become women her early research, Dreger started do so out of a sexual fetish that working with the activists, urging Blanchard labeled “autogynephilia,” doctors to stop surgically “correct- a kind of sexual fantasy connected ing” ambiguous genitalia. Unlike with the idea of being a woman. many activists coming from the Blanchard and Bailey’s theories con- academy who “wanted to just spew tradicted the self-understanding of cute slogans and academic postmod- many in the transgender community, ernist horsesh —,” Dreger and her and threatened the prevalent — and, colleagues made a serious effort to according to Dreger, politically understand the scientific and clini- convenient — theory that those who cal evidence, and to meet doctors on sought male-to-female sex changes their own terms to persuade them were simply women trapped in men’s that many of the surgeries performed bodies. on intersex children were unneces- As Dreger recounts, a trio of sary and harmful. transgender activists, Lynn Conway,

Spring 2015 ~ 129

Andrea James, and Deirdre N. in 2000 accused Chagnon and his fel- McCloskey, attempted to discredit low researcher James Neel of crimes Bailey by accusing him of violations ranging from disrespecting the of ethical norms governing research. beliefs and taboos of the Yanomamö Bailey, according to these activists, to attempted genocide. Dreger found failed to follow the standard proce- that the charges made by Tierney dures for protecting human research against Chagnon and Neel were subjects for the people he interviewed largely fabricated. But the American and used as case studies in the book. Anthropology Association was will- The whole Bailey affair was, to say ing to make an example of Chagnon. the least, a tangled web, and while Jane Hill, the former president of the Dreger does her best to clear Bailey association, led a task force to investi- of accusations of ethical violations, gate the accusations, and even though even her sympathetic account leaves she privately believed that Tierney’s Bailey looking like a reprobate. book was “just a piece of sleaze,” the Next, Dreger turns to her defense task force’s 2002 report was damn- of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, ing of Chagnon’s work. (This report, whose studies of violence among the however, did not end the controversy, Yanomamö people of the Amazon and in 2005 the association voted to starting in the 1960s brought him rescind its acceptance of the report.) both fame and notoriety in the anthro- Dreger concludes by returning to pological community. Many writers intersex activism, in this case, her on war and violence, including Steven campaign, joined by a number of Pinker, a friend of Dreger’s who has other activists and bioethicists, to himself been involved in controver- put a stop to the use of the steroid sies with academics on the right and dexamethasone. “Dex” is employed to left, have used Chagnon’s work to prevent intersex conditions (or even refute the old myth of the “noble sav- “behavioral masculinization,” such as age” and to argue that war and vio- “tomboyism” or lesbianism) in the lence are part of human nature. daughters of women affected by a For many anthropologists, condition known as chronic adrenal Chagnon’s goring of sacred cows hyperplasia. Together with other bio- was enough to put him outside the ethicists, Dreger in 2010 sent a letter pale of respectability. It also didn’t of concern to government agencies help his case that he was in many responsible for overseeing the protec- ways an abrasive and arrogant tion of human research subjects, spe- character — a real “Galilean person- cifically focusing on the intersex treat- ality.” But there were also very seri- ment conducted by pediatrician Maria ous allegations leveled at Chagnon New, which led to a heated exchange by Patrick Tierney, a journalist who in the American Journal of Bioethics.

130 ~ The New Atlantis

Though Dreger raised some impor- tion of the facts may not be perfectly tant criticisms of the use of these ste- objective. But the chief shortcoming roids, her effort to get the Office for of the book is not that it lacks objec- Research Subjects Protection to crack tivity or is short on facts; rather, down on New’s studies was ultimate- Dreger devotes too much effort to ly unsuccessful — the “accountants on the factual questions to spend any white horses,” as Dreger describes time answering the big questions she the federal bureaucrats, found that poses about science and justice with New’s work conformed to the letter anything better than clichés about of the law. “Truth, Justice, and the American Between these four stories Dreger Way” (the title of the book’s conclud- recounts some of her conversations ing chapter). with other persecuted academics, However, we can discern some including biologist E. O. Wilson, important ideas about the relation- whose sociobiological theorizing ship between science and politics made him the target of left-wing in some of Dreger’s observations demonstrations; Ken Sher, the editor and arguments. For instance, Dreger of the academic journal Psychological writes that the American Founding Bulletin, who in 1999 published a Fathers were “science geeks,” and review claiming that childhood sexu- that they “understood the useful- al abuse may result in less long-term ness of the scientific review model.” psychological harm than is generally Despite the anachronistic wording, believed, which was condemned by a there is an element of truth in these resolution of the U.S. Congress; and claims. But Dreger’s more specific Craig Palmer, an evolutionary psy- claim that the separation of powers chologist, who earned an unsurpris- in the U.S. Constitution is “meant to ing amount of ire from feminists for do just what the review process of a the biological explanations he offered good journal is meant to do: Weed for rape. out the bad, leaving the good” is quite implausible. It is true that the separa- reger’s memoir-like approach tion of powers, checks and balances, Dmakes her book a lively and and the other relevant elements of engaging read but provides little the Constitution were understood sustained argumentation about the by some of the framers to have been old and vexed question of the tension “scientific,” in the sense that the between free inquiry and morality. Constitution was based on principles Dreger defends her narrative discovered by what was thought of as approach at the outset by saying she “the science of politics.” But the sepa- recognizes that she has her own per- ration of powers was certainly not sonal biases and that her presenta- modeled on the peer review system

Spring 2015 ~ 131

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. Brendan P. Foht of the scientific community, which Madison, in Federalist 49 (writing provides for the review of scientific of the separation of powers, as it claims by peers, not by authorities in happens) argues that too-frequent different institutions. If the framers appeals to the people would “deprive of the constitution wanted some- the government of that veneration thing like scientific peer review, they which time bestows on every thing, would have designed a very different and without which perhaps the wis- system of government. est and freest governments would not This admittedly offhand and per- possess the requisite stability.” Such a haps careless remark by Dreger about concern for the veneration of tradi- the origins of the Constitution does tion would be irrelevant “in a nation point to an important way of think- of philosophers,” but for Madison, the ing about the relationship between existence of a nation of philosophers science and politics, where science was hardly to be expected. is valued more for its example than For many liberals like Dreger, we for its specific teachings. Just as the can and should strive to be a nation example of anti-authoritarian think- of free-thinking philosophers. Since ing set by Galileo is more important much evidence from history and than, say, the specific theory of the psychology suggests that bias and heliocentric solar system, so too is prejudice will continue to thwart the example of the scientific com- dreams of a purely rational political munity’s dedication to free and open order, conservatives remain justified inquiry more important than any in their belief that some veneration of of the particular theories of scien- tradition is needed for social stability. tists. To return to the Founders, they The ideal of objectivity in politics understood there to be some tension is “more ardently to be wished for,” between what careful observation of as Hamilton wrote, “than seriously human nature and history taught to be expected” — and so the post- about the demands of politics and the modern project of undermining the value of free and objective inquiry for ideal of objective inquiry by gleefully political life. Alexander Hamilton, in unmasking the prejudices behind it Federalist 1, writes of the nobility of should be recognized as reckless, irre- establishing a new government from sponsible, and even anti-democratic. “reflection and choice” and of the Even while we acknowledge the lim- importance of relying only on those its of scientific objectivity for politi- impressions “which may result from cal life, we should nonetheless recog- the evidence of truth”; yet he writes nize that scientists, at their best, can also of the inevitability of “preju- serve as exemplars of the intellectual dices little favourable to the discov- and moral virtues needed by self- ery of truth” influencing the public. governing citizens in a democracy.

132 ~ The New Atlantis

reger herself sets a good exam- cases of dangerous science, Dreger Dple for her readers with her doubles down on the sanctity of steadfast activism on behalf of both academic freedom, writing that for persecuted scientists and oppressed academics — unlike the devotees of minorities, and particularly with her “identity politics” — the only identity meticulous research into the com- that should matter is “our identity as plicated accusations made against academics, as truth seekers.” Bailey and Chagnon. But the specific This invocation of academic free- allegations against these scientists dom is all well and good, but those are only part of their stories, and, critics of scientists who appear to indeed, were apparently only deriva- be in the thrall of identity politics tive of the activists’ deeper concerns would probably argue that inquiry with the moral implications of the into race and IQ is not the only area scientists’ theories. Explaining why of science that can do “no good and these scientists have been criticized, much harm.” According to Deirdre and understanding how activists and McCloskey, “the worst feature of scientists ought to interact in the [Bailey’s] theory is the treatment future, means looking at the moral it inspires,” which includes not only implications of scientific theories. the withholding of sex-reassignment Dreger is a staunch defender of surgery but also “murders and lesser academic freedom, but she does rec- mistreatments which can be laid at ognize that academic freedom needs the door of those who have want- limits. Obviously, scientists are not ed so very much and for so very free to do whatever they want with long to define a free human choice human research subjects, and Dreger as a sexual pathology.” Meanwhile, is at least as passionate in her defense anthropologists who were critical of of vulnerable research subjects as Chagnon argued that “he has dam- she is in her defense of beleaguered aged” the Yanomamö by “his activi- scientists. But, for a brief moment in ties in the field but most of all by the book, in a “reactionary calculus,” his insistence on portraying them as she asks if there is “anything too primitive savages.” Other scientists, dangerous to study.” After raising notably E. O. Wilson and many of this question, Dreger acknowledges his followers in the field of sociobi- that “no good and much harm could ology and evolutionary psychology come from certain scientific pur- who have ventured into biological suits,” such as studying race and IQ. accounts of human nature, have been But instead of going into the reasons criticized for espousing theories that why it is dangerous to study race and are said to lead to racism, sexism, IQ, which might have helped to show eugenics, and all manner of reaction- how we could identify analogous ary political projects.

Spring 2015 ~ 133

Are these critics right? Dreger serves not only to ensure that people argues that Bailey and Chagnon cer- are, as Dreger writes, “free to do sci- tainly meant no harm, and cared ence” but also to establish the moral deeply about the people their theories and prudential limits to the respon- were said to harm, and she refuted sible exercise of freedom of thought many of the specific allegations made and science. against them. But the fact that Bailey This kind of criticism of science and Chagnon did not intend any must be distinguished from the more harm does not mean that their theo- straightforward limitations on sci- ries will not result in any harm. And entific inquiry imposed by the need even if the scientists are innocent to protect human research subjects, of specific crimes against research or questions related to whether new subjects, their research might still technologies made possible by sci- have dangerous implications for the ence will be beneficial or harmful. people whom their theories describe. Criticizing certain scientific theories for the effects they might have on our hese criticisms raise several moral beliefs is a more extreme mea- Tdeeper questions. Can scien- sure, one that sits less comfortably in tific ideas themselves be harmful, a society that prides itself on its pro- and if so, why and when? And how tection of free speech and a vibrant can we distinguish harmful scien- public square. Before any form of tific ideas from those that are benign scientific inquiry can be curtailed, it or those that do more good than is at least necessary to show why the harm? As Leon R. Kass argued in a beliefs generated by that inquiry will 2009 essay in Science and Engineering impair human flourishing. Ethics, answering questions like these Looking again at the controversy requires “engaging not in the scien- over Bailey’s theories — and setting tific activity that gives rise to the entirely aside all the specific allega- difficulties but in a different kind of tions against the man — we can see inquiry: the search for the truth about that the activists who criticized his the human and moral significance” of work were concerned that his theory the scientific advances in question. about transsexuals being motivated by This kind of truth-seeking is not lim- their sexual orientations would cause ited to those who identify as academ- many people in society to think ill of ics; and, unlike scientific inquiry into them, and that such a theory is incon- human behavior — which, according sistent with the self-understanding of to Dreger, may be used to establish a many of the transsexuals the theory “sustainably just system” — this kind purports to describe. Dreger defends of inquiry will seek the truth about Bailey on these scores by arguing that justice. And justice, in this sense, Bailey’s theory comports with the

134 ~ The New Atlantis

self-understanding of many trans- if those attitudes include a dispo- gender people, and that, in any case, sition to murder. Indeed, that we society should accept self-declarations should change murderous and other- of gender regardless of the biological wise violent attitudes about our fel- theories that may or may not help low citizens is obvious, regardless of explain those self-declarations. whether the attitudes have anything These arguments do not defend to do with scientific theories. But researchers like Bailey against charg- especially when the truth of the the- es of irresponsibility from activists ory is itself highly contentious — and like McCloskey, who asserted that the these kinds of psychosexual inter- Bailey-Blanchard theory will result in pretations can never reach the kind “more dead queers” — plainly a very of certainty and clarity of an exact bad outcome. Of course, McCloskey science — moral considerations about may be wrong to believe that the the likely consequences of the theory promulgation of the Bailey-Blanchard should be taken seriously. theory will result in persecution, but According to Dreger, “good schol- Dreger’s chief counterargument — arship had to put the search for truth that Bailey was himself highly sup- first and the quest for social justice sec- portive of transgender people and ond.” But given the risk that Bailey’s endorsed granting them access to sex- theory might cause serious harm, we reassignment surgery — is not very ought to ask what the upside might persuasive. Bailey’s open-mindedness be. What good might come from for- shows only that it is possible to mulating such controversial theories hold his theories and be supportive about why people want sex reassign- of transgender people, not that his ment? Arguing for the priority of theories are not conducive to think- truth over justice, Dreger invokes the ing ill of transgender people. In any technological benefits of science and case, McCloskey’s concern is not the dangers of unquestioned author- implausible; transsexuals are certain- ity. But weighing the moral implica- ly subject to violence and mistreat- tions of scientific theories is quite dif- ment, and the belief that transsexu- ferent than thinking about whether als are sexual fetishists, which is a and how technologies may be good crude but understandable interpreta- or bad for us. And while a concern for tion of the Bailey-Blanchard theory, the truth can help us resist authori- would be unlikely to make them bet- tarian governments, the historical ter respected by most people. It could track record of science and scientists be argued that, rather than conceal- is somewhat mixed: scientific institu- ing the truth about transsexuality, tions and scientific theories have both we ought to change the attitudes of enabled and countered authoritarian people toward that truth, certainly politics. Science does not speak with

Spring 2015 ~ 135

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. Brendan P. Foht a monolithic voice on most contro- cience is not just a way to criti- versial political issues, and evaluating Scally dismantle prejudice or to the moral implications of scientific help develop useful technologies; it theories, like the moral implications can also provide us with knowledge of technologies, can be done only on about the world that, rather than a case-by-case basis. giving us more power and more free- As to the value of free inquiry as an dom, could give us reasons to restrain antidote to authoritarianism, Dreger the exercise of our freedom. The big- writes that only people “with insane gest political controversies relating amounts of privilege, could ever think to science today are not those about it was a good idea to decide what is human nature that Dreger discusses, right before we even know what is but about the relationship between true.” But in some cases, knowing humans and nature — specifically, what is right can make pursuing the environmental issues. Scientists tell truth much easier. For instance, on us about the unintended consequenc- the question of how to assign gender es of a variety of human activities that to intersex children, Dreger writes appear morally benign in themselves that “I hope we never require bio- but can be seen as imprudent in light logical ‘proof ’ to believe someone’s of the new ecological sciences. self-declaration of gender,” and that Analogous claims might be made “how they got there may be scientifi- for the social sciences. For many on cally interesting to us...but how they the left, social science has been seen identify themselves as individual per- as the foundation for social engineer- sons in terms of gender is for them ing. But much as ecological scientists to decide.” But this does not seem have come to recognize the complex- so very different from the moral ity of ecosystems, so too have social position Dreger attributes to some scientists recognized that societies unnamed “colleagues in the humani- respond in unpredictable ways to ties” against whom she “argued back” the well-intentioned efforts of scien- earlier in the book: “We have to give tists to master either non-human or voice and power to the oppressed and human nature. Social scientists’ rejec- let them say what is true.” When the tion of the assumption that human pressing moral issues that scientific beings are infinitely malleable, and inquiry might be thought to bear on the understanding that the institu- are declared to be already settled, the tions and traditions of societies are scientific inquiry becomes just “inter- evolved forms of spontaneous order esting” rather than deeply controver- that may be better suited to solv- sial. The authority of moral norms ing problems than the intelligently can render science less dangerous, designed agencies of central govern- but also less important. ments, are in part why conservative

136 ~ The New Atlantis

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. Socially Just Science political thought has been so much Scientific inquiry into the truth more lively than the stale technocra- about human nature is a worthy tism of the left in recent decades. part of the modern scientific project, Under this more ecology-minded and one that deserves our support. form of social science, we might However, it is not morally neutral. recognize that many of the taboos, Scientists who want to study human including some of those relating to nature must justify their research both race and sex, that scientists seek in moral terms: What might this to explain away or undermine as mere research tell us about who we are prejudice may indeed be, to borrow as human beings, and what might Kass’s phrase, “embodiments of rea- it mean for how we should live? son and goodness.” In defending the- Trying to separate the moral ques- ories that would make gender-iden- tions from the results of inquiry by tity a matter of sexual orientation, claiming that all the moral ques- Dreger denies that sexual desires tions are already settled would make ought to be subject to moral evalu- scientific inquiry both irresponsible ation. Many transgender activists and irrelevant. Making such claims find this to be unrealistic, while other is irresponsible because it ignores the critics may consider it too extreme reality that many people in society of a moral position: Should we not who see things differently may use condemn any expressions of sexual the claims for pernicious ends. But desire between consenting partners? it is also an admission of irrelevance. While sexual liberation has come a Why inquire about human nature long way, there remain some sexual if not in the service of the Socratic taboos — for instance, the vast major- question of how we should live? ity of Americans still condemn extra- An open-minded dedication to free marital infidelity. As Peter Augustine inquiry into the truth, notwithstand- Lawler has argued in these pages, a ing the barriers of taboos, traditions, Darwinian social science reinforces and authority, is admirable — but real the view that moral norms about open-mindedness also calls for rec- sexuality, which may include taboos ognizing when taboos, traditions, rooted in human nature and human and authorities embody reason and culture, should take their start not goodness and deserve our respect. from the perspective of the liberated individual, but from the child-rearing Brendan P. Foht is assistant editor of pair-bond. The New Atlantis.

Spring 2015 ~ 137