Aiming for a neutral pH in STEM

For reference, I am a half Argentinian - half Israeli chemist; I think of myself as a center-left liberal both in an economic and political sense; I hate fascists and racists, and I believe that STEM direly needs more diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Having said that, I would like to tell you a small story from a chemical laboratory that can serve as a useful analogy for the point I want to raise. Please bear with me.

In my old days in an analytical lab, from time to time we had to neutralize a barrel of waste for disposal. Basically, all the liquid junk that was too acidic had to be treated with base until it reached a neutral pH, and only then it could be thrown into the sewer. To reach a pH close to 7 you must use sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃), a very mild base. However, if the original liquid was too acidic, the process was frustratingly slow; so we could use sodium hydroxide (NaOH), a very strong base, to accelerate it. But NaOH has a major drawback: It is so strong that it is far too easy to overdo it, and then the solution will be too basic. If that happens, then again the liquid was not apt for disposal, and the neutralization would have to be carried out once again, now in the opposite direction. Moreover, a reckless addition of a strong base to an acidic solution might create a violent and dangerous reaction.

What does this have to do with politics and sociology in STEM? Everything. We have been inundated with articles in favor and against DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) and politics in science. Terms like wokism, cancel culture, dog whistle, neutrality, liberalism, meritocracy, academic freedom, white supremacy, Twitter-storm, or social justice warrior, to name a few, currently are common language that every scientist must recognize to be part of the scientific community. Some of these terms are clearly positive, others clearly negative, and some are both, depending on who is talking. What is clear is that this has created a sense of polarization, not strange to the one that politics has created in too many countries. Acid and base. This article makes the case for the middle way in STEM, which in simple words means that when the medium is not too basic or too acidic, it is best to proceed with moderation.

Note that all this does not imply the Fallacy of the Middle Ground, which says that reaching a middle point between the requirements of both parties in a conflict is not a valid rhetorical or practical argument. Golden mean philosophies are valid only when the opinions of both parties are logical and justified. There is no middle ground against fascism, and half-racism will never be the solution to full racism. Hopefully no one will understand the ideas of this article in this sense.

The State of Affairs

Let me start by acknowledging that in academia there is racism, misogyny, chauvinism, xenophobia, homophobia, and most other flavors of discrimination. However, the amount of these maladies is substantially lower than in the past. Historically, in many universities Blacks were not welcome, Jews suffered from quotas (or worse in Germany), and women were nowhere to be seen. The academic social climate was extremely acidic for most minorities. Nowadays, except for specific deplorable cases, these big evils are not our concern anymore. The systematic low pH was slowly and painfully neutralized through the years. Changing the collective mentality took generations, and this was achieved by a “weak base” treatment. Currently it is more and more difficult to say the N-word, to have an orientalist condescending position, or to keep women out of academia. The window of permissible discourse has also changed in a very positive manner. 

Now that we see less aggressive behavior, we have started discussing the problem of passive-aggressive and micro-aggressive behavior. Now we do not condone cultural appropriation, while before we had to deal with blatant cultural demonization and hate speech. We have started fixing the unconscious bias, since conscious bias is much rarer.  A short time ago people were desperate for colorblindness, now conservatives say they are colorblind, and progressives criticize them for not correcting ancient inequities. In 1915 David Hilbert had to defend the invitation of the mathematician Emmy Noether to Göttingen by asserting that “I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her admission as privatdozent. After all, we are a university, not a bathhouse”; nowadays we are actively looking for women privatdozent. I call all this progress.

We can and should speak about the glass ceiling and leaky pipe problems in science, about intersectionality, about the lack of representation for minorities, about DEI. There is still much to do. But the positive side is that we have many women, LGBT and people of color as professors, and most of us agree that we would like to see more of them at every level of the university hierarchy. Life is getting better, one bicarbonate drop at a time. We are the lucky generation that needs to deal with weak acidic problems instead of strong acidic conditions, and we can deal with them with baking soda instead of with lye. 

We can point out that sometimes extreme acidity requires a strong base. The Nuremberg trials, the “woman, life, freedom” protests in Iran, and the fall of the Berlin Wall are just some examples. Strong NaOH movements that started at the university were, for instance, the May 68 protest in France, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre in China, or the two-year strike at the University of Paris in 1229 (apparently even in medieval times the murder of several students by the police was not acceptable). These were extreme cases, which most of us are very lucky not to have to deal with.

My feeling is that at this time in history we are close to a dynamic equilibrium between the progressive and conservative camps in most institutions around the world (as a note, I personally do not think that “progressive” and “conservative” are the correct terms for this dichotomy, but I will use them as stereotypes of the two postulated factions in this debate). However, the fight between them is increasing. Conservatives suggest that canceling lecturers is an evident trait of National Socialism and Communism, whereas progressives speak of a subtle assault on minorities, also an evident trait of fascists and totalitarians. These two positions have a seed of truth and provide valid arguments in serious academic analysis but more often than not the two sides debate using classic strawmen with below-the-belt propagandistic effects, cherry-picking facts that match their agenda, sometimes even with religious fervor.

Something similar occurs with the issue of the politicization of sciences. Should STEM be tainted with mundane politics or not? People have debated from both sides, many of them providing good arguments, even if we do not agree with all of them. An interesting and connected debate has been raised on the matter of meritocracy as a measure of filling academic positions. Or, more accurately, if it should be the only measure for that purpose. The fact that we are ready to flexibilize the professorship selection process including identity politics more than just looking at the CV and the recommendation letters is, I think, a positive advancement. This is not of the taste of some people who argue with very good reasons that merit has to be the only measure of a man, and with whom I also tend to agree. The first group says that we should give extra points to communities that had it harder, while the second group says that we should judge everyone by their personal capacity and not by their family or ethnicity. How can I agree with both positions, the classical liberal and the progressive? That is material for another article. It is enough to say that it is constructive to have this discussion, as long as it does not reach absolutist viewpoints.

I think that the current state of affairs in which we are openly talking about how to reach an egalitarian university and how we should help minorities enter STEM and be the leaders of the next academic generation reveals that we are living in a wonderful time, with a pH close to 7. Of course there are still problems; there will always be. But those will slowly improve with bottom-up evolution, and not by forcing the system with caustic soda.

Then What is the Problem?

Let me tell you another story that has nothing to do with chemistry: the story of the pioneers who came late. 

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away there was a totalitarian regime. It took many lives, but the resistance forces finally conquered the bad guys and brought balance to the galaxy. After this revolution, many problems were still affecting everyone’s lives: small pockets of persons longing for the old tyranny, difficulties to govern in the new system, people trying to get organized and adapt, and other minor issues. But these inconveniences were incomparable to the Hell of the previous world. It was at that time that a new group of freedom fighters appeared, strong and proud, with the sacred mission of making a better world for everyone. They wanted to be like their heroes, the revolutionaries who defeated the evil regime, and nothing would stop them from achieving their worthy goal. Not even the fact that, actually, there was no revolution to carry out, since the system was already fixed. The solution they found to the dissonance created by the lack of big problems was to tackle each small issue as if it were critical and fundamental, and therefore in need of a revolution. Since everything was now a revolution, everything was valid, because the end justifies the means. Moreover, whoever was against the revolution was a traitor to the cause. Hasta la victoria siempre. These were the pioneers that came late. No wonder that many people began to be wary of these fighters, even if they agreed with the fighter’s fundamental ideas. In the end, the lovers of the previous tyranny now had the perfect excuse to fight back.

The fable of the pioneers that came late is an analogy to many situations, but the parallelism with the progressive movement is evident. I am not a psychologist, but I understand that the need for purpose and belonging is strong, especially for young people. Well-directed, this can be very positive. But in an advanced and functional society we need relatively small changes: evolution instead of revolution. In progressive terms, some individuals, groups, or institutions tend to take things in a disproportionate manner, such as with exploding budgets for DEI units, pseudoscientific absolutism, gigantic criticism, and condemnation of moderate liberal-conservative opinions, requiring diversity statements, and cancel culture in particular cases. I will not start detailing all these cases since others have done  it better than I could. 

I am aware that conservatives have also done this and much worse, but as a progressive myself, it is hard for me to reconcile the fact that these techniques are appearing on my side of the political spectrum. In doing this, I am not comparing progressives to fascists, but that does not mean that we have to be oblivious to the growing progressive problem. The pioneers that came late are shouting too loud, and moderates are finding it more and more difficult to express themselves. Some of them are actually afraid of speaking, after seeing what happened to others involved in these conflicts. Some others are unfortunately moving more and more to the right as a reaction to the overzealous DEI measures, with a polarization that strongly affects STEM’s human interactions. There are already very sketchy politicians who are taking the “woke epidemic” as the perfect excuse for their agenda, putting sticks on the wheel of judicious DEI advancement. Some conservatives are pouring strong acid as a reaction to the strong base that was poured by some progressives due to the acidic conditions. 

We should not lose focus. Our job is to do and teach STEM. If DEI improves STEM in the short or long run, as I think it does, then it should be welcome. If it just works as lip service and is a waste of time, or worse, if it substantially deteriorates the level of STEM by siphoning resources or hindering the work of researchers, maybe we need to reconsider. The solution is pretty simple: just take things in proportion.

Some not so original ideas of what can be done

Let me give my two cents on what should and should not be done. These ideas are not really original, and they are not groundbreaking. They are just personal opinions based on the middle way philosophy.

First of all, as STEM members we should seek a rationalist viewpoint and practical approach, applying the scientific method if possible. This should come naturally to us, but it is surprisingly difficult. There are more populistic measures than logically handled projects, often going for the easy solution instead of the rational one. 

On a similar line, avoid “at least we are doing something” measures. Let me bring up one classical example. Nowadays it is a cliché to speak about decolonizing science (a term that I fail to understand, but that is for another article). After checking some articles about how to achieve that objective, one common pattern appears: all the proposed measures are quite silly. There is no way to teach science without teaching science, and therefore science developed by the “colonists” and “conquistadors” (that is, all Western science) must stay, rendering the term  decolonization meaningless. However, to keep the appearance of decolonization, one thing is typically recommended: teach the history of underrepresented groups in science. To be fair, I am completely in favor of this. It is a great idea to present the work of people from all around the world in old cultures as well as in modern times. At the same time, it is great to teach science in context, showing the society and the zeitgeist where scientists were working and living. Inserting pieces of history, philosophy, sociology, and economics of science can be great for DEI, and should be encouraged at every educational level.

The issue is what I call the “Tu Youyou effect.” Since most modern science is based on Enlightenment and pre-Enlightenment ideas (Descartes, Newton, Bacon, Galileo, Boyle, et al.), finding a competing paradigm of the scientific method based on a “non-Western” culture is complicated, at least without falling into pseudoscience. However, that does not mean that modern science cannot learn and take inspiration from ancient ideas and thinkers. The most renowned and highlighted case of this is the discovery that artemisinin can treat malaria by Tu Youyou’s team, which occurred after screening thousands of traditional Chinese recipes. She received a Nobel prize for her truly outstanding work. Teaching this case as part of the scientific endeavor, showing the interaction between past and present, as well as between East and West, is enriching. What is not enriching is to exploit this successful story to indoctrinate about the decolonization of science. This research project took information from ancient Chinese material, but the research itself was done according to the modern scientific method. Moreover, only one of the thousands of tested recipes proved to have an active ingredient against malaria, hardly a success story for traditional Chinese medicine. Worse, it makes no sense to claim that we must decolonize, and when asked how, to replay that we will teach the Tu Youyou story. This is the “at least we are doing something” technique, a non-rational, non-useful, unconvincing, self-defeating approach to DEI. We must think harder.

I am also deeply saddened to see so many DEI articles falling into classic logical fallacies and cognitive biases (strawman, appeal to emotion, loaded questions, genetic, Texas sharpshooter, slippery slope, tu quoque, anecdotal, false cause, ad hominem, anecdotal, and burden of proof fallacies; framing, backfire, anchoring, in-group, belief, Barnum, sunk cost, and confirmation biases; you name it, I have seen them all). Worst of all, these mistakes appear not only on Twitter, but also in high-level scientific journals. I have seen too much mediocrity (both in conservative and progressive articles!) taking the most extreme nut jobs and statistically insignificant anecdotal cases as examples to push a specific agenda in academia. We are STEM, the truth seekers, the ones that stand on the shoulders of giants, the torch that illuminates the world. We should be much better than this. Please check your rationality compass and stop bullshitting. It is embarrassing. 

Which brings me to the second idea: Strict enforcement of DEI measures is very dangerous and counterproductive. It is one thing to try to discuss how to help minorities, but quite another to force people to write mandatory diversity statements. It is one thing to support and actively work in favor of hiring candidates from underrepresented groups, but quite another to establish a quota or to force hiring persons of specific groups. Yes, I know that meritocracy is a myth guided by the Matthew effect (“For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them” Matthew 25:29, NIV), and that in the long run it is better to have a diverse department, but the solution is not to choose by ethnic identity. Instead it is to help less fortunate groups to excel so they can take advantage of fair chances. Achieving this will properly help DEI without negatively affecting academic excellence, a classical fighting ground between “progressives” and “conservatives”. The coercive measures that we are seeing nowadays are beyond being overly enthusiastic, they are fanatical.

A classic example was the movement to enforce a minimum number of women in critical university commissions, in principle a fine idea, since obviously women representation in every aspect of STEM is positive for all. This movement, as laudable as it sounds, was a complete disaster. There were not enough women in sufficiently high positions to fill those quotas, creating a huge pressure on female professors to take an unsustainable number of bureaucratic roles that affected their careers. One would assume that research institutions would have thought about this before applying such measures. It was a naive idea, and now many places are eliminating this women’s quota to let them concentrate in their research and teaching, as faculty should do regardless of their gender. 

Nobody can force or control diversity, and certainly nobody should shove it down anyone's throat. We also must accept that different groups and cultures may have different interests, including less or more attraction to STEM. You cannot speak about respecting cultures and being against cultural colonialism, but at the same time expect those same cultures you are supposedly defending to participate in STEM with the same interest as your own culture; this is extremely patronizing. Universities can and should help minorities participate in STEM and reach their full potential, but not at the cost of forcing them.

A third important point on improving DEI can be simply written as: Get out of your bubble. Do you know what the DEI status is in universities in other countries? Do they discriminate against the same minorities  as in your university? Did you ever consider that in most of the world, most academics are not white? Did you consider that the most disadvantaged minorities may not be the ones you are fighting for? If you live in a first world country, how much are you involved in helping immigrants and people from non-developed countries access and enjoy STEM?

The world is much larger than your country and its campuses. Minorities in other countries might have nothing to do with minorities in yours, and the discrimination and problems they have might be quite different than in yours. In addition, considering that DEI is a multidimensional concept, the progressive-conservative division in other countries might be unlike anything you know. Indeed, after spending a couple of years in Texas, I realized that the left-right gap in the US is totally at odds with that in Argentina and Israel.

One issue that particularly strikes me is the “advice” to avoid certain words and phrases in the name of inclusive language. If you want to cancel a certain term from the STEM vocabulary because of the implications it has in the racist past of your country, did you ever consider that the same term may not have the same implications in the rest of the world? 

The penultimate concept I would like to tackle is the principle of proportionality. If a professor consciously or unconsciously makes a difference between two students due to their religion, or provides a “toxic” atmosphere in their laboratory, or if they have a consensual affair with an adult student, these are all breaches of the code of ethics. Nevertheless, and without diminishing the plight of the people that were harassed, these are not cases of pure hate crime à la Stark or Lenard (famous supporters of the Aryan physics ideology), and therefore they must be dealt with legally and proportionally, not by picketing, defenestration, or by making an example of them. This is not only unethical, it can play against the DEI position, providing ammunition to the enemies of DEI. And certainly everyone must be considered innocent until proven guilty, a strange idea for Twitter abusers and trigger-happy social justice warriors. Whatever your position is, think rationally and with a cool head before taking to the streets.

And the last thought: Equity is a progressive myth if we do not seriously discuss it. For example, to avoid the bias created by the researcher and university name as well as  nationality in the publishing process, I am a big supporter of mandatory double-blind peer-review (and of course of making journals accessible for all). Most people do not really understand how many dimensions the term “privilege” has, believing that only white old cisgender men have it. For instance, if you were born in an English-speaking country, have you ever thought about how much time the rest of the world wasted learning your language because it is the lingua franca of STEM? The answer is at least half a year. US and UK researchers are incredibly privileged, and at the same time completely oblivious of how privileged they are. Again, the biggest source of inequality is not intranational, but international. I can only wish that the pioneers that came late would ponder that.

Conclusion

I understand that if hard-line conservatives push illiberal and retrograde politics, that is on them, and we must fight them. But I will never forgive the progressives if with their intransigence they pave the way for hard-core conservatives to acidify STEM. Let’s keep an intellectually honest debate, and go for the middle way. We have a nearly optimal, neutral pH already.