David Lillis: Fighting for Science

Defending Merit in Science

Imbuing science with ideology harms the scientific enterprise and leads to a loss of public trust. If we continue to undermine merit, our universities will become institutions of mediocrity rather than places of creativity and accomplishment, leading to the loss of the competitive edge in technology. Thus, we need to restore our commitment to practices grounded in epistemic humility and the meritocratic, liberal tradition (Abbot et al., 2023).

In Defense of Merit in Science (Abbot et al., 2023) is now in the public domain. This critical paper was authored by a group of very eminent scientists and thinkers, including Professor Anna Krylov, who initiated the project, and two Nobel prizewinners – Arieh Warshel and Dan Shechtman. Other well-known contributors include Glenn Loury and Jerry Coyne. The list of authors also includes Distinguished Professor Peter Schwerdfeger, an eminent theoretical chemist at Massey University.

The paper constitutes a compelling argument on behalf of science and against both degrading of core principles of liberal epistemology and the replacement of merit with non­scientific, political criteria. So – now we have a timely and much-needed articulation on behalf of science, one that should be compulsory reading for all of those behind the current revision of education, the constitutions of our universities and Government ministries, and science funding here in New Zealand. The essential spirit of the article is that merit­-based science is effective and fair, and that replacing merit with social engineering and ideological control will lead to damage. It is hard to disagree.

The authors express deep concern about the proliferation of identity-­based ideology that seeks to replace core liberal principles, essential for scientific and technological advances, with principles derived from postmodernism and Critical Social Justice. Such principles claim routinely that world science is racist, patriarchal, colonial and a tool of oppression. We hear similar assertions in New Zealand (e.g. McAllister et al., 2019, 2020 & 2022 and Ngata, 2021).

In New Zealand such articles sometimes advance claims of systemic racism and bias against minorities in university hiring and promotion in our universities – assertions that most probably are untrue (Lillis, 2023). Among others, Professor Jacinta Ruru refers to the low representation of Māori on university faculties as a crisis (e.g. McPhee, 2016). Her argument was based on the observation that, around that time, fewer than 6% of New Zealand university academics were Māori, while at the previous census Maori made up about 15% of New Zealand's population.

While it is eminently desirable that numbers of Māori on university faculties be increased significantly to become eventually in-line with their presence in the total New Zealand population, in fact the proportion of faculty identifying as Māori is roughly consistent (possibly even a little more) with the proportion of Ph.D completions going to Māori (Lillis, 2023). Attribution of the low percentage of Māori in university faculties to systemic bias and racism is factually incorrect, and it remains to be seen whether Professor Ruru, Dr. McAllister and others retract their allegations in this regard. Similarly, disparities in health and education outcomes are often attributed to bias and racism. While it is entirely possible that pockets of conscious or subconscious bias exist, socioeconomic factors and other causes (for example, lifestyle choices and genetic differences contributing to disparities in health) are those that should be addressed primarily if present inequalities are to be closed.

Post-Modern and Identity Ideologies

We agree with the authors of In Defense of Merit in Science that the ideological basis of the current attacks on science emerged largely from postmodernism and associated identity­-oriented ideologies, including Critical Race Theory. The authors are concerned that such ideologies are evident within politics, culture and education, and are affecting science, medicine, technology, psychology and global health adversely. Identity-based ideologies are promulgated by activists who know little about science but who, unfortunately, are supported by university administrators and others who decline to protect their institutions from regressive ideas and attacks on their systems and policies for hiring and promoting staff. Unfortunately, it is not only systems and policies that are under attack, but also people, who stand to be compromised both professionally and reputationally as a result.

Indeed, across many countries and even here in New Zealand, we hear calls for the established structures and practices of science to be replaced by Critical Social Justice-­based practices (revolutionary destructivism). In New Zealand and across the world, descriptors or terms such as “excellence”, “impact”, and “quality” appear less and less often. However, the terms “white supremacy”, “discrimination”, “harassment”, “race”, “gender”, “violence”, “intersectionality” and “marginalization” appear more and more frequently, usually without citation to any credible supporting evidence.

A pervasive theme of today is that science is white and colonial and, therefore, should be dismantled or, at least re-configured. The authors note that in New Zealand, decolonization of science through adding mythological content from Māori traditional knowledge to the science curriculum is now firmly in place within schools and universities, evidently with the support of Government. Unfortunately, the infusion of traditional knowledge is set to become even more embedded when the new primary and secondary curriculum comes into force in 2026. Our main objection is not to the presence of traditional knowledge in a national curriculum (itself a desirable enterprise if minority languages and traditional knowledge are to be treasured and preserved), but its infusion across the entire curriculum and consequential taking up of class time for millions of students at the expense of other critical learning. A second objection is that embodying the traditional knowledge and language of one particular ethnic group fails to recognize the multicultural nature of New Zealand society and is essentially unfair on other ethnicities.

Social-justice-oriented and anti-colonial ideology has become very prominent in New Zealand. For example, a very recent publication states the following:

The Enlightenment period, as the foundation of modern intellectual theory, was overseen by scientists and philosophers who were investors and clients of the slave trade and Imperial dispossession of Indigenous territories the world over, and their work supported those practices. (Moko-Painting et al., 2023).

Recognising both positives and negatives in colonialism and also in indigenous societies, just how many scientists were investors or clients in slavery? Of course, such sentiments emerge from Critical Race Theory, which downgrades the many positive humanistic and universalist values that emerged from the Enlightenment.

Traditional Knowledge as Science in New Zealand

Moko-Painting et al. speak of overcoming a long-standing distrust of research as a particular challenge within the “colonial structures of Western science”. They conceptualise Pūtaiao as a form of indigenous research sovereignty in which indigenous leadership is imperative. They promote as an essential element of Pūtaiao the setting of a “decolonising agenda”, drawing from both Kaupapa Māori Theory and other indigenous methodologies. They assert that ontological framings of Western scientific research restrict indigenous ways of researching in the scientific academy.

Here they have a point but, if so, why? If indigenous ways of knowing and researching are indeed restricted, is it because of prejudice - or is it because indigenous epistemologies and ontologies, and indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, however valuable they may have been in their time (and may still be), cannot possibly compete with twenty-first-century world science that is based on sometimes enormous levels of funding and investment, advanced training, collaboration across institutions and across nations, and where the gold standard comprises intensive peer-review, followed by publication in internationally-reputed journals? If indigenous ways of knowing are restricted within New Zealand science (much less true today than previously), then we may find that they are restricted everywhere else, as well.

They propose Pūtaiao as providing a set of tools and language to critique the academic disciplines of Western science which they see as a “colonial construct within the global colonising agenda”.  They believe that the relationship between Pūtaiao and “Western science” necessitates setting a decolonising agenda before an “indigenising agenda” can be realised, whereby the two domains become mutually beneficial rather than mutually exclusive. Apparently, in this way, Pūtaiao becomes a pathway for asserting indigenous sovereignty over, and redefining scientific research for, future generations of Māori and Indigenous researchers.

Various observers caution against equating traditional knowledge (including mātauranga Māori) and science. For example, Georgina Stewart discriminates between the two domains, recognising that, while mātauranga Māori includes empirical knowledge of the natural environment, it does not share the same paradigm or theoretical framework as science. Her perspective is that it makes more sense to relate mātauranga Māori to a Māori form of philosophy, rather than chasing after the status claim of ‘Māori science’ (Stewart, 2020). 

Thus, Moko-Painting et al. should review the contributions of traditional knowledge to:

1.   The world of the invisibly small (i.e. beyond what can be seen by the naked eye).

2. The Universe and all that is involved beyond those parts that are visible to the naked eye.

3. The processes of plate tectonics and geology.

4. The oceans beyond where fishing nets were cast by indigenous people of the past

5. The disciplines of mathematics, physics, chemistry, molecular biology, computer science etc.

6. The idea of complexity beyond the obvious nature of networks and things being composed of other things and having history.

7. Most of medicine.

The above list is not yet well developed and could be expanded considerably, but in any case we see only small overlaps between the domains of traditional knowledge and the broad sweep of world science. Perhaps, the ideal approach is for scientific and policy communities around the world to embrace certain values of indigenous communities that include caring for each other and for the environment, and for those who wish for systemic change to adopt more conciliatory dialogue, but not to chase the status claim of traditional knowledge as science. 

The Critical Role of Science in our Quality of Life

Of course, serious problems continue to challenge us; poverty, inequality, wars, and violence persist. Climate change, biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic disease threaten global gains made over the past century. (Abbot et al., 2023).

Abbot et al. remind us that science continues to be the best tool we have to address the challenges of today and in the future. It provides the basis for renewable energy technologies, mitigating anthropogenic impact on the global climate, feeding the world’s growing population, controlling pandemics and eradicating debilitating diseases. However, they concede that science alone is not sufficient as a solution, but instead constitutes a tool that can be used for both good and bad.

Probably, many or most scientists agree that traditional knowledge embodies elements of science and can contribute to science and policy-making, but within limits. Funding that is based on ethnic affiliation, as is about to appear within New Zealand’s Performance Based Research Fund, is a dangerous concept unless managed very carefully. We will not achieve long-term success in tertiary education and research by appointing academic staff on the basis of ethnicity rather than of genuine research potential, nor by funding research into traditional knowledge or indigenous society, rather than into public health, education and the pure and applied sciences. 

Racism in Physics and other Domains?

As an example, the authors discuss allegations of racism in physics, noting that in 2022 Science published a special issue that featured several editorials and other articles on that subject. These pieces assert that physics is racist and exclusionary and based on white privilege; that existing programs do not serve women or minorities, and that merit-­based evaluations must be relaxed in order to increase diversity in science. However, such assertions are supported very rarely by credible evidence of systemic racism.

As another example, they note that “decolonizing” of pharmacology has contributed to a preoccupation with traditional medicine, with the result that health agencies report many medical misadventures involving herbal products that have not been validated following “colonial” standards. At many universities across the world, faculty applicants are now required to write Diversity, Equity and Inclusion statements that are expected to encompass social justice.

The authors of In Defense of Merit in Science remind us that the notion that all inequality in the present is determined by discrimination in the present is inconsistent with the available evidence. For example, on average Asian Americans earn higher degrees and enjoy higher incomes than white Americans but the notion that all inequality reflects systemic racism leads to the absurd conclusion that the U.S. is an Asian supremacist country.  

Historic Injustice

The authors do not ignore the impacts of historic racism and sexism on present inequalities and indeed they make it very clear that we must address these residual issues. However, we cannot address inequalities by introducing diversity metrics into funding or hiring decisions, nor by weakening criteria for university admissions and professional advancement. Instead, they recommend that we invest in educational outreach and programs in order to increase access to sustained quality education and early exposure to science, engineering and mathematics. Scientists must defend the integrity of their disciplines, even in the face of bullying and verbal attacks, and donors and funders should demand rational scientific effort.  

Scientific appointments, grants and article acceptances should be awarded on quality rather than on identity. The ethos of science is the search for truth and the production of knowledge, but not the redistribution of rewards to achieve activists’ visions of equity or reparative justice.

The authors assert that enforcing identity­-based hiring is discriminatory, denying high­-achievers of opportunities, thus damaging morale and engagement. In the United States, this agenda has resulted in unfair treatment of Asian­-American, Jewish, white, male and foreign students.

Strengthening the Defense of Science

The authors believe that affirmative action policies are unfair and counterproductive. They suggest that solutions involving outreach in admissions and hiring to people from disadvantaged backgrounds will promote fairness and enlarge the pool of promising students. Outreach should not involve imposing quotas or lowering academic standards, but instead should provide opportunities to develop the skills needed in scientific and other research-based fields. Dismantling or disrupting institutional practices that have led to science’s greatest achievements, and replacing them with untested methods, is a dangerous experiment that jeopardizes the future of science. We agree.

Abbot et al. offer six suggestions for depoliticizing science and strengthening merit­-based practices:

1.    Government research funding be distributed exclusively on merit.

2. Academic departments and conferences select speakers on scientific, rather than ideological, considerations.

3. Admissions, hiring and promotion be merit-­based and free from ideological tests.

4. Scientific papers are published and retracted on the basis of scientific, rather than ideological, grounds or on the basis of public pressure.

5. Universities enforce policies that protect academic freedom and freedom of expression.

6. University departments and professional societies refrain from issuing statements on social and political issues that are not relevant to their core functions.

Reflection

In Defense of Merit in Science is a very timely and worthy attempt to stem the present avalanche of damaging ideology that comes, in large part, from those who know little or nothing about science. Further, it takes a considerable degree of courage to put something like this paper into the international arena, given that academics stand to be marginalized for expressing considered, professional opinions or, indeed, for stating the truth.

Very well done to all of those who contributed to this excellent piece; not least to Distinguished Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, who is among those leading the defense of science and education in New Zealand.

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.

REFERENCES

D. Abbot, A. Bikfalvi, A.L. Bleske­ Rechek, W. Bodmer, P. Boghossian C.M. Carvalho, J. Ciccolini, J.A. Coyne, J. Gauss, P.M.W. Gill, S. Jitomirskaya, L. Jussim, A.I. Krylov, G.C. Loury, L. Maroja, J.H. McWhorter, S. Moosavi, P. Nayna Schwerdtle, J. Pearl, M.A. Quintanilla­ Tornel, H.F. Schaefer, P.R. Schreiner, P. Schwerdtfeger, D. Shechtman, M. Shifman, J. Tanzman, B.L. Trout, A. Warshel, and J.D. West.

In Defense of Merit in Science. Journal of Controversial Ideas 2023, 3(1), 1; 10.35995/jci03010001 
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/236

Lillis, D. (2023). Allegations of Racism in New Zealand Universities 
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/03/dr-david-lillis-allegations-of-racism.html

McAllister, R., Kidman, J., Rowley, O., and Theodore, R. F. (2019). Why isn’t my Professor Māori? MAI Journal. DOI: 10.20507/MAIJournal.2019.8.2.10. p 235-249. 
https://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/sites/default/files/MAIJrnl_8_2_McAllister_FINAL.pdf

McAllister, R., Kokaua, J., Naepi, S., Kidman, L., and Theodore, R. F. (2020). Glass Ceilings in New Zealand Universities. 

MAI Journal. DOI: 10.20507/MAIJournal.2020.9.3.8, p 272-285. 
https://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/content/glass-ceilings-new-zealand-universities-inequities-m%C4%81ori-and-pacific-promotions-and-earnings

McAllister, R. (2022). 50 reasons why there are no Māori in your science department

Journal of Global Indigeneity, Vol.6, Issue 2, 2022, 1-10. 
https://www.journalofglobalindigeneity.com/article/55788-50-reasons-why-there-are-no-maori-in-your-science-department

McPhee, E. (2016). Otago Daily Times. Otago prof calls for more Maori lecturers. 
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/campus/university-of-otago/otago-prof-calls-more-maori-lecturers

Ngata, T. (2021). Defence of Colonial Racism. 
https://tinangata.com/2021/07/25/defending-colonial-racism/

Stewart, G. T. (2020). Mātauranga Māori: a philosophy from Aotearoa

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 52:1, 18-24, DOI: 10.1080/03036758.2020.1779757. 
https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/items/408831b2-96af-4aad-88dd-70753d3fd7e4

Te Kahuratai Moko-Painting et al,. (2023). (Re)emergence of Pūtaiao: Conceptualising Kaupapa Māori science. Indigenous Research Sovereignty. 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/26349825231164617?journalCode=epfa