Beyond the Boundaries of Science

At its core, the objective of the problem-solving approach used by natural scientists is to apply data and observations to the construction of models that predictably explain how the physical universe operates.  The assumption is that if the mechanism of by which a physical process occurs is understood, it should be possible to reliably predict the outcome of that process as it occurs under a particular set of circumstances.  The current culture of the natural sciences as a discipline, which has evolved over the course of several centuries, is characterized by an emphasis on uncovering new knowledge through the application of this approach, formally defined as the “scientific method”.  The research culture of the natural sciences, however, does not easily accommodate an awareness that natural scientists are influenced in their work by forces that are decidedly not part of the scientific approach.  These influences, which are economic, political, cultural, and bias against race and gender, derive from the fact that it is human beings who are seeking answers to questions through scientific problem-solving.  The exploration and understanding of the directions natural science scholarship takes, how it is motivated, and how its products are used require problem-solving approaches that reside in the humanities and social sciences, disciplines that scholars traditionally separate from the natural sciences.  My experience, which is consistent with the findings of numerous recent studies, has been that natural scientists usually ignore potential contributions to their efforts provided by other disciplines and do not consider how other disciplines are impacted by the practice and products of the natural sciences.  In addition, the problem-solving tactics used by the social sciences and, especially, the humanities are widely perceived by natural scientists as lacking the “rigor” of the research conducted within the boundaries of the natural sciences.  This describes the atmosphere in most of the laboratories in which I have worked.  The reality, however, is that everything that surrounds the actual practice of the scientific method is determined by factors that are the purview of the humanities and social sciences and must be examined and understood by the investigative methods used in those disciplines.

Tensions always exist between the interests that drive research in the natural sciences and the welfare of population sectors that may or may not benefit from new knowledge that arises from scientific problem-solving.  The interests may include the desire to improve the well-being of humanity, but more often than not they are dominated by the economic, political, cultural, and discriminatory motives of a small subset of a population.  Ultimately, this comes down to who makes the decisions to provide material support to scientists and to which questions this support is applied.  One does not have to dig very deeply into the history of science, including as recently as last week, to determine that the vast majority of natural science research is conducted to meet the interests of small population sectors that weld power and influence.  Scientists working in laboratories or in the field, supported by funding from a source other than themselves, are not solely guided by personal interests but are to a large extent responding to the forces that control the resources that enable them to practice their discipline.  The large majority of natural science research conducted globally is funded by private sector interests, and even that which is funded by the public sector is controlled by individuals or small groups with specific political and economic motives.   Even the vaunted peer-review process by which natural science research is vetted before being publicly disseminated is controlled by an uncomfortably small sector of the natural sciences community and is subject to the politics of interests and cultural, racial, and gender discrimination.  The result is that newly acquired scientific knowledge is seldom equitably distributed and applied to improve the welfare of entire populations.  Some population sectors benefit more than others and some sectors may even experience a decline in their well-being as the result of the endeavors of natural scientists.

I have been researching for the past several years the tensions that exist between human interests and human welfare and the intersections that exist between the natural sciences and other disciplinary areas of study.  This work began with a pedagogical collaboration with my colleague Prof. Claudia Aburto Guzmán of the Bates College Department of Hispanic Studies, whose inspiration and insight led us on a journey to break down the contrived barriers that have traditionally separated the natural sciences and humanities from each other.  Our work together has resulted in a new cross-disciplinary teaching model that seamlessly presents to students the natural sciences and humanities as an integrated whole.  This collaboration also led me to understand that I needed to revise how I teach all of my courses.   The courses that comprise natural science curricula seldom include a meaningful examination of why science is done, the factors that determine its direction, or the impacts that scientific research has on different population sectors, including human rights.  I now include these issues in my courses and even designed a course that specifically examines, from a historical perspective, the relationship between the natural sciences, human interests, and human welfare.  It turns out that engaging students with the natural sciences from this perspective provides an effective avenue of entry for many students with cultural backgrounds that are not shared with white, upper class students.  The collaborative project with Prof. Aburto Guzmán is described here, linked from the drop-down menu.