My debate with Holden Thorp. UNC, Feb 8, 2022 online.

by Luana Maroja

This February, I participated in an online conversation with Holden Thorp, moderated by Christopher Clemens.  It was part of the series “Science and Democracy” at UNC – the video is available here.  Thorp is currently the editor-in-chief of Science magazine. Having started his carrier as a chemistry professor, Thorp also served as a Chancellor of UNC Chapel Hill, and as provost at Washington University in St Louis. In his role as an editor of Science, Thorp writes frequently about politics and social justice, with representative titles such as “Trump Lied about Science” and “Science Needs Affirmative Action.”

Here I describe what I learned from this conversation, focusing on what I attempted to communicate.  I did not re-watch the debate (hate to hear my own voice)—thus, the account is from memory and written notes.  

The conversation started with questions about the role of politics in science.  My view is that scientists are citizens and should participate in democracy in ways that they find appropriate, in the same way as other citizens do. Yet, they must not overstep the boundaries of responsible conduct when speaking publicly as scientists. What I mean by “boundary” is the line between providing an expert opinion about a problem and advocating for a particular solution.  

When scientists begin to advocate for solutions, it can lead to the loss of public trust in science.  As scientists, we should strive to keep science separate from discussions about what to do with scientific knowledge.  But “should” does not mean that we do; scientists are also human and are prone to temptations. When scientists perceive a threat, be it climate change, a pandemic, racism, or sexism, they might be tempted to use their privileged positions to opine on such topics to a degree that exceeds their actual expertise.  Some might even attempt to weaponize science for a "greater good" -- e.g., to counteract the perceived threat and to achieve their goal.  Unfortunately, this is how well-intentioned efforts can backfire, leading to a loss of trust in science per se, because such advocacy presents scientists as another special interest group, rather than as impartial experts.  We have recently seen this happening in the context of climate change, as well as in the response to the pandemic. 

Thorp and I were largely in agreement during this part of the discussion, including agreement that nuclear energy could provide a plausible environmental solution. Yet, Thorp does seem to think that using science as a weapon to push against perceived threats is fine; as examples of such threats, he mentioned racism and sexism.  When asked why he did not endorse a presidential candidate when speaking as the editor-in-chief for Science magazine, he said it was against the magazine’s rules.  

The next question was about the rise of ideologically driven students' resistance to conversations on "controversial topics" in the classroom. This question was based on my Atlantic piece. I, and colleagues from multiple institutions, have been observing increasing ideological intolerance in the science classroom, most often occurring in discussion sessions, questions, and in private emails to the teacher. 

I first noticed this pattern the year that Trump was elected.  I was teaching genetics that semester, and, as before, I introduced the concept of heritability by talking about a controversial topic: IQ differences between countries.  As I had done many times before, I presented the large average difference in IQ scores between the inhabitants of the United States and those of my home country, Brazil.  I asked students to think about the limitations of the data, which do not control for environmental differences, and explained that the raw numbers say nothing about whether observed differences are indeed “inborn”— that is, genetic.

To my surprise, some students started arguing that it is impossible to measure IQ, that IQ tests were invented to ostracize and marginalize minority groups, and that IQ is not heritable at all.  This is an example of students pushing back against an observation they dislike, not by using scientific arguments, but by employing an a priori moral commitment to equality, anti-racism, and anti-sexism. They resorted to denialism to protect themselves from having to confront the reality they reject — in this case, that phenotypic traits might be partly hereditary.

This is not to deny the long history of charlatans who have cited dubious “science” as a proof that some racial and ethnic groups are genetically superior to others.  My approach has always been to teach students how scientists understand heritability today, to help them avoid traps and misinterpretations that have occurred in the past. We observe a similar kind of resistance when we teach about differences between males and females – some students deny that the differences exist or they state that such differences are social constructs.  

To my surprise, some students even objected to other well-established biological concepts, such as “kin selection,” the idea that when individuals take actions for the benefit of their offspring and siblings, they are indirectly perpetuating their own genes. They raised the issue that this was a problematic concept, because Trump was hiring his own daughter.  These students fell into what we call the “naturalistic fallacy”— the notion that what occurs in nature is good — and claimed that by teaching this concept I was endorsing Trump’s hiring of his family! 

I have also observed a marked increase in students asking for “trigger-warnings” for “offensive content” such as an older textbook using the word “Indians” instead of “Native Americans,” or the use of the word “dyke” in geology, not as slur on lesbians, but as a technical term (“dyke” is a layer of rock cutting into another layer); some students in physiology refused to use the word “woman” and instead used “person with a uterus.”  This increase in taking offense is not surprising, it goes hand-in-hand with the raised awareness and the training workshops designed to prevent “microaggressions.” This hyper-awareness of potentially offensive words leads to a snowball effect, where even minor things, such as using the term “you guys” or praising the English of an immigrant like me, are considered offensive.

The moderator asked if I changed my approach to teaching as a result of incidents I described.  While I do not avoid specific subjects, I now feel compelled to issue caveats: “Just because a trait has evolved by natural selection does not mean that it is also morally desirable”; “a heritable trait does not imply immutability, destiny, fate.”  Furthermore, while I try to not be bothered, I am self-conscious when I use phrases like “you guys” or I ask: “Where are you from?”  Perhaps some of these changes are positive, as issuing caveats might actually improve understanding and prevent misconceptions. However, other changes are obviously negative, especially the increase in self-censorship that leads many professors to avoid topics that they consider “dangerous.” This trend should be a concern to us all.

At some point after this part of the discussion, Thorp noted his dislike for professors “mocking students.” I did not have a chance to address this comment until later in the debate, when he repeated the claim.  I pointed out that being concerned about increased fragility and ideological resistance to science is not “mocking students.” If a student asks me not to use the word “guys,” I will certainly avoid the word, not mock the student!  In fact, I do not know a single case of a professor “mocking students,” even when student demands are concerning or far-fetched. Furthermore, as educators and scientists, we must teach students what is true, even if some concepts make them uncomfortable, not cater to their whims and insecurities. Confronting a student’s misconceptions and misplaced beliefs is not “mocking;” it is a part of education!

The last part of the conversation focused on the response to the pandemic and whether an overly confident scientific consensus blocked research about possible lab-leak origins.  The final question was about genetic modification and what humans of the future might think we did wrong.  The part concerned with genetic modification was interesting – I pointed out that embryo selection is already happening and that it is different from eugenics, because this selection is executed by the parents rather than by the state. I mentioned that people regularly abort embryos affected by Down Syndrome.  At this point, Thorp emphasized that he is “pro-choice” and believes that it should be a woman’s choice to decide on her embryos.  Sadly, we were short on time… I wonder whether Thorp would also be in favor of embryo selection for polygenic traits.  Would it be okay if the mother aborts embryos with lower school achievement polygenic scores? Or female fetuses, as routinely happened in China under that nation’s former “One Child” policy? What about selection for height? Color?  When does such selection become a societal concern?  It is a sliding scale, and one should be very careful saying “okay” to something that requires a lot of thought.  

After the discussion was over, we had the Q&A session – there were 86 questions in total and the moderator selected a few.  The most interesting one was about how much we should be “coddling students.” Thorp asserted that universities were originally created for people who look like him, referring to the first universities in medieval Europe.  He then stated that our present duty as educators is to make people who do not look like him (females and those from other ethnic backgrounds) comfortable in a university environment.  He even went as far as to suggest that we should not teach concrete disciplines the same way they were taught in the past. I did not have a chance to ask whether he indeed thinks that we should change how we teach multiplication tables and Newtonian laws in our more racially and gender diverse classrooms. Does he really think that the teaching of Latino women requires a different math pedagogy than does the teaching of white men? I did point out that our universities have changed a lot since they were established and that present demographics are far from including exclusively white males.  A huge cultural change has already taken place; there is wide awareness about biases and harassment; women and ethnic minorities are prominently present at all levels and can have a strong voice.  We certainly have come a long way since my times as an undergraduate in Brazil!

What Thorp does not seem to realize is how offensive it is when it is argued that inclusiveness requires special accommodations, such as lowering the expectations for people who “look like me.”  I described my experience of participating in a training session for a hiring committee at the college where I now teach.  During this session, we were told that "we cannot expect as much from Latina women [as from white men], because they have more obligations towards family,” something I found incredibly insulting, as if I don’t have the agency to decide how to balance my own time just like anyone else.  Other initiatives in the name of inclusiveness, such as chasing microaggressions, are even more negative and damaging to the individuals who internalize this concept – imagine that you adopt the microaggression mindset and live your life thinking that the world is turned against you. Consider this not-that-hypothetical scenario: you walk and wave to a student and the student does not wave back to you.  You have two choices: you might decide that this was a personal microaggression due to who you are, or alternatively, you might conclude that the student simply did not see you.  Only one of these two views can lead to a good life and mental health.  

In many instances during the conversation and in his writings, it is clear that Thorp subscribes to a Woke worldview.  He believes in the value of diversity, but assumes that the diversity can be attained only by lowering the bar for women and minorities, and that "inclusion" can be achieved by excluding white males.  Ironically, at least twice during the conversation his comments revealed that he does not consistently apply this logic. Prior to the conversation, when we all showed up on time, he commented that we did so “because we are all scientists” – this ignores the fact that my culture (Latina Brazilian) does not respect punctuality, and that I had to learn to do so for my own benefit.  He then pointed out that, “as scientists we were the first to run with our complete AP calculus tests to our teachers in high school.” Well, in Brazil I had a third-world education… I did not have the opportunity to take calculus until I was in a PhD program at Cornell.  I certainly did not study AP calculus in school, and if I had dared run waving a completed exam to the teacher, I would be sure to never to have friends again... It is a pity that the topic of culture was not discussed more in this conversation – I imagine Thorp’s view would be that “all cultures are equal in their outcomes”, when they clearly are not.

In the end, I was unsure if Thorp is a true believer in the need to lower standards in the name of inclusion, or if he plays a game, where he is a white savior.  It is hard for me to understand why some people, with all good intentions, fail to see the obviously damaging effects of their ideologies and actions.  Lowering standards and expectations hurts the most vulnerable of us; it does not help science or the people that such actions are intended to help -- and I hope we can start pushing back hard against this damaging ideology.