Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

Предыдущая публикация
Jeff Lockhart

Panofsky's (and colleagues) work on how the far right takes up the artefacts of science in order to suit racist and sometimes violent ends can be instructive, too. Many geneticists weren't on board with how their work was taken up by outside interests.

1142
Jeff Lockhart

Hicks has a great paper for thinking about how some of these virtues have been fought over among scientists and with outside interests in the past. journals.publishing.umich.edu/ptpbio/artic...

When Virtues are Vices: 'Anti-Science' Epistemic Values in Environmental PoliticsSince at least the mid-2000s, political commentators, environmental advocates, and scientists have raised concerns about an “anti-science” approach to environmental policymaking in conservative govern...journals.publishing.umich.edu
Обсуждение

1 прямых ответов · 6 сообщений

Jeff Lockhart

(btw, I'm not tagging these people because I don't want to pull them into tense conversations, so please don't drag them in, but they do good work and you should go follow them.)

Ответ для Jeff Lockhart
Jeff Lockhart

Back on my BS, my sense of the science reform movement (its virtues and its warts) is that the dynamics and pathologies are very different from the battles over sex and race essentialism that I wrote my dissertation on.

Ответ для Jeff Lockhart
Needhi Bhalla 💅🏽

If you’re inclined, I’d be interested in why you think that. I see some commonalities, especially in the funding sources, but am less well-versed in the history

Ответ для Needhi Bhalla 💅🏽
Jeff Lockhart

I think one big difference is the scholars & funders are more aligned in bioessentialism debates than in science reform debates. But they may have similarities in other ways.

Ответ для Jeff Lockhart
Needhi Bhalla 💅🏽

Thank you! And thanks for the blog piece. It made some important conceptual connections that needed to be explicitly stated