During the last 15 minutes of one of the interviews to doctor Dawn Bazely, she suggested the scientific community to think of Science as a political tool. There are several historical examples that we can recall to help support this argument, making it almost surprising to believe some people still think of science as the ultimate neutral source of facts.
Truth is that the sort of research that gets funded, the things people want to hear about or explore deeper into have everything to do with everyone’s political biases. Moreover, what type of people tend to become scientists? Certain personality types are overrepresented in particular careers.
Dawn says “If you believe in scientific method and significant collections of data but you don’t see yourself as a source of unconscious bias, then you are part of the problem”. This reality might be a hard-to-swallow pill for many members of the scientific community, but the fact goes beyond our perceptions of objectiveness.
I fully agree with Dawn’s vision on this aspect of science. In fact, many of us are still unaware of what the word “ecology” means, which is (as one of its definitions) “the advocacy for the protection of natural resources from pollution or its effects; environmentalism”. In my case, I wouldn’t have considered this career path if I didn’t believe it could be impactful for a larger amount of people than just the ones involved, which implies an encounter with social dynamics.
My advice to you: choose and use your sources under awareness of them not being exempted from the human factor.
Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2020 