Value-free or Value-laden Science

There are two positions which seem antagonistic: one in favour of value-free inquiry and the other in favour of value-laden inquiry. It is of course evident that a physician and biomedical researcher must have a personal minimal ethical framework, which for physicians is represented by the Hippocratic oath.

Bertrand Russell has argued that philosophical [‘scientific’, note by the author] inquiry must stay value-free (Russell Reference Russell1936, new edition by Routledge Reference Russell2004) and that introducing personal beliefs has and will harm the philosophical [‘scientific’, note by the author] enterprise. More recently, the value-laden viewpoint has gained prominence (for a comprehensive review see Elliott Reference Elliott2022). In particular, Helen Longino (Reference Longino1990) has argued that value-free science is a myth and that belief and assumptions guide research.

Longino coined the term ‘contextual empiricism’ to stress the presence of the value context or framework. This value-framework should be reinforced and enshrined in the scientific methodology to not allow, for instance, racist or sexist research (e.g., research that could potentially harm minority groups). This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the value framework (also called the Overton window) is the range of ideas the public is willing to consider and accept, but which may shift or be extended when the value system of a society changes. This window may shift, and what was not problematic may become problematic over time. Second, who (a particular group of people, organizations, the state, etc.) is imposing these values? When one looks at historical events, ‘value’ systems may vary enormously and may have some good but also very negative impacts on research (e.g., ideologically-driven value systems such as in Nazism or in soviet communism, etc.). Furthermore, value-bound research impedes the autocorrective mechanisms that are built into science when science is done freely. Science that promotes racism can easily be debunked by better and freer science.

Finally, two historical examples can be given that contradict Longino’s value-laden science concept. The first is the discovery of the circulatory system by William Harvey. In Harvey’s time, the assumption/belief was that there is a unidirectional flow of the blood from the heart to the peripheral organs. This was based on Galen’s theory of the vasculature. Harvey broke with the belief system of his time by using the empirical method, and discovered by himself, through experiment, blood circulation (Bikfalvi Reference Bikfalvi2018). The second example is Ignaz Semmelweis, who was at odds with the explanation of childbed fever of his time. He broke with the current ‘theories’ of his time by applying the scientific method through experiment (Hempel Reference Hempel1966).

A problem arises when value systems become hypertrophic, rigid, self-righteous and do not relate to objective reality (see Figure 1). Science then becomes a toy in the hands of ideologues, and this will have dramatic consequences for scientific inquiry and society in general (such as Lysenkoism and famine in the USSR, etc.). Hypertrophic, not reality-bound value systems are not only a problem in authoritarian countries but also in Western democracies.

Figure 1. The IS and OUGHT in science. Values have, of course, a role, being the personal minimal value framework. However, when the OUGHT becomes hypertrophic, rigid, and self-righteous, projecting to a pseudo-reality construct, it transforms itself into ideology

Recent Emergence of Social Justice Ideology in STEMM

The recent emergence of social justice ideology (SJI) is a case in point. SJI is represented by three types of intellectual ‘currents’: Critical Race Theory (CRT), the decolonizing movement, and gender/queer theory (see Figure 2). These are derived from cultural Marxism (Gramsci, Lukacs) to a varying degree. CRT is a kind of Americanized and racialized critical theory built on the Frankfurt School’s critical theory (see Corradetti Reference Corradetti2013 for a comprehensive review), with K. Crenshaw’s intersectionality concept as an important appendix (Crenshaw Reference Crenshaw1991). Intersectionality refers to the ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and other forms of discrimination ‘intersect’. The present-day decolonization movement was and is promoted by scholars mostly of African, south-American or Indian origin, and the gender/queer branch is derived from radical neo-feminism, which then became radical intersectional neo-feminism when blended with Crenshaw’s intersectionality concept. Scholars at universities, and especially law schools, have played a significant role in laying the intellectual groundwork for these movements, which are widely diffused in many branches of the humanities and especially the social sciences. SJI has been largely amplified by social media corporations (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and has penetrated all areas of society, the arts (e.g., antiracist Shakespeare), education, private or state-run corporations, cultural and scientific societies, scientific publishing, etc.

Figure 2. The origins of present-day ideological intrusion into science

Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) were initially thought to be immune to SJI because of their scientific, rigorous methodology. But this turned out to not be true, as SJI now has a firm seat in many scientific and medical institutions (Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), National Academy of Science (NAS), American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychological Association (APS), American Mathematical Society (AMS), etc.), and in STEMM university departments.

The characteristics of the attack on science, and in particular on biomedical research and clinical practice, is three-fold (see Figure 3) and includes its epistemic foundations, politics and society, and praxis. This has important consequences, which include: (1) the replacement of epistemic foundation by SJI scholarship; (2) the debunking of supposed racism and sexism everywhere in STEMM; (3) social conformity and obliteration of viewpoint diversity in STEMM; (4) reduction of every health differential to these variables (racism, sexism); (5) introduction of SJI and especially CRT into the syllabus for medical students; (6) tailoring treatments according to CRT and gender criteria; and (7) cancelling dissidents.

Figure 3. The characteristics of the attack on science and in particular on biomedical research

Social Justice Ideology in Scientific Publishing

Scientific publishing has also been overtaken by SJI. Many opinion pieces have been published with a flood of articles of mediocre quality in leading journals, such as Science, Nature, Cell, The Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, etc. In particular, DEI statements and citation justice statements (CJS) are recent significant developments (Dworkin et al. Reference Dworkin, Zurn and Bassett2020). Indeed, there has been a push in some sectors of STEMM for the promotion of DEI statements that are appended at the end of a publication. Authors declare, for example, that the work has a balanced sex ratio for non-human subjects, that some of the authors belong to specific minorities or are disabled, that support has been received to increase minority representation in science, that the list of authors include contributors from the location where research has been conducted etc. (Ray Reference Ray, Zurn, Dworkin, Bassett and Resnik2022).

As for the citation diversity statements, authors declare for example the following (Ray Reference Ray, Zurn, Dworkin, Bassett and Resnik2022):

Thus, to achieve this, specific software is developed to screen citations for their gender/ethno-balance (Dworkin et al. Reference Dworkin, Zurn and Bassett2020). The causal explanation of these differences is always claimed to be bias, stereotypes, exclusion of minorities, hegemony (of white, cis-gendered heterosexual men), and systemic sexism and racism (Zurn et al. Reference Zurn, Teich and Simon2022). There are statements such as ‘the story of science as an objective hunt for inalienable truth performed by lone genius white men has pernicious effects for…,’ or ‘many efforts exist already to contextualize scientific progress outside the dominant narrative of white masculine European triumph…’. These statements reflect no gratitude to the men who have contributed so much to science, technology, and medicine, and thus to human flourishing (men such as Semmelweis, Pasteur, Koch, or Einstein).

A recent example of SJI in science publishing is the special issue on racism by the science journal Nature, which seeks to overcome Science’s toxic legacy (Nature Editors 2022). This issue, better called ‘Special Issue on Anti-Racism’, was coordinated by Melissa Nobles, a political scientist, chancellor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, USA. Nature, in its introductory page, displayed all we are accustomed to from the nova lingua of social justice in the line of many previously published articles by the same journal. In their own words: ‘Nature has played a part in creating this racist legacy. After the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2020, Nature committed to becoming an agent of change, and helping to end discriminatory practices and systemic racism.’ It not only deals with self-accusations of deeds of the past but also of the present (without specifying any of the present day ‘racist’ articles they published). It is egregious self-loathing.

The introductory statement from the issue editors and co-editors reflects their full commitment to anti-racism and social justice ideology. The articles published in this issue range from subjective accounts of felt racism to systemic racism, racism in computer science or in medical practice, and racism in UK research institutions, such as in Imperial College, where Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) is displayed as a racist. This is a blatant example of presentism, which can also be applied to Paul Broca, the famous French physician and scientist who made important contributions to neurology and many other areas of biomedicine, and also founded anthropology. In his time, he was held a progressive but he is now seen as a racist and sexist. Furthermore, physiological differences are used as a proxy for racism, such as the measure of skin O₂ levels, which of course is different in dark skin when compared with white. The omission of this fact in the past is interpreted as racism. Overall, the articles in this issue display what Carl Hempel would call the fallacy of affirming the consequent: a hypothesis is inferred as true when the test results support the hypothesis, which leads to confirmation bias.

Social Justice Ideology in Medical Practice

A final example is the intrusion of Critical Race theory (CRT) into clinical management. Michelle Morse, a chief medical officer at the New York City department of Health and Mental Hygiene, states in a tweet: ‘Racism is the risk factor not race. We should consider race in order to advance equity. Non-white race and Latinx ethnicity are social risk factors for severe covid because of longstanding structural racism.’ She thus promotes what she believes to be a true anti-racist approach to health management. In an article published in The Lancet magazine, Michelle Morse is cited as saying that ‘We will never get to health equity without taking a race-conscious approach’ (Samarasekera Reference Samarasekera2022). The American Medical Association (AMA) seems to endorse this approach (see webinars by the Center of Health Equity, e.g., American Medical Association on Health Equity 2021).

Importing CRT into clinical medicine is a blatant betrayal of the Telos of medical practice. No one should get near a hospital where this type of approach has been introduced.

Amplification Devices for Social Justice Ideology

The amplification devices of the SJI are three-fold: (1) concept creep, (2) psychogenic contamination and herd behaviour, and (3) the motte-and-bailey fallacy (strategical equivocation) (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Amplification devices for Social Justice Ideology (SJI)

Concept creep relates to the extension of meaning of socially important harm-related concepts (Haslam Reference Haslam2016; Haslam et al. Reference Haslam, Tse and De Deyne2021). Expansive concepts of harm problematize previously tolerated behaviour and reflect a growing sensitivity to suffering and injustice. The expansion of the concepts may be horizontal or vertical. Horizontal expansion is, for example, the concept of micro-aggression (from the SJ textbook) and vertical expansion is ‘racism’ which encompasses racist attitudes, as well as systemic, structural, and institutional racism.

Classical psychogenic contamination can lead to a psychogenic epidemic, where neurological symptoms or other pathologic symptoms may appear. Recent Tourette-like syndrome cases in a young population have been described as being provoked through social media (Müller-Vahl Reference Müller-Vahl, Pisarenko, Jakubovski and Fremer2022). At the same time, SJI may lead to collective mass psychosis when targeting specific socially relevant phenomena in which group behaviour is reinforced. Carl Jung writes in Symbolic Life (Jung Reference Jung and Jung1977), on the dangers of psychogenic epidemics, the following:

The motte and bailey fallacy is used by activists to strategically misguide well-intentioned people where a concept (e.g., racism) is used as bait and subverted from its initial meaning. It is connected to some extent to concept creep.