Science is political

Chemist Anna Krylov of the University of Southern California has argued in a recent article in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters that science is becoming dangerously politicised. In a response in the same journal, I have argued that science itself has always been political; the question is not how to prevent that but what to do with it.

Krylov’s article is in fact a prime example of politics masquerading as objectivity. ‘I witness ever-increasing attempts to subject science and education to ideological control and censorship’, she says – by which she is referring to discussions about race and gender biases and imbalances, about the appropriateness of nominative memorials to the likes of William Shockley (an evident racist), and calls for equity, diversity and social justice. Such efforts, she says, are examples of ‘extreme left ideology’ that is ‘turning STEM education into a farce.’

There is a valid point here: we do need to have a considered discussion about whether and when to rename institutions and awards if the individuals they are named for upheld values inimical to the promotion of equality in science today. As I say in my response, the initial removal of Peter Debye’s name from the University of Utrecht’s nanomaterials institute when he was accused in 2006 of collusion with the Nazis was premature and ill-considered. ‘Cancelling’ him isn’t the solution – but neither is pretending there is no case to answer.