෦ ෧ ෨ ෩ ෪ ෫ ෬ ෭ ෮ ෯
සිංහල ලිත් ඉලක්කම්
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
බටහිර විද්‍යාවේ ජාතිවාදය
පහත පළවන්නේ ඇමරිකානු විද්‍යාභිවර්ධන සංගමයේ සඟරාවක 2020 අගොස්තු 11 වැනි දා පළ වූ ලිපියකි. මෙහි සාකච්ඡා කෙරෙන්නේ විද්‍යාවේ ක්‍රියාත්මක වන ජාතිවාදයයි. ජාතිවාදය ඇත්තේ සිංහල බෞද්ධයනට පමණක් යැයි සිතමින් බටහිර විද්‍යාව ගැන පම්පෝරි ගසන පඬි නැට්ටන්ට මෙය වැදගත් වන එකක් නැහැ.
මෙහි සාකච්ඡා නොකෙරෙන වඩා වැදගත් කරුණක් වෙනවා. බටහිර විද්‍යාවේ කතන්දර ගෙතීමේ ඇති සංස්කෘතිකවාදයයි. ඇතැම් පඬි නැට්ටන් හිතන්නේ මා හැම දෙයක් ම සංස්කෘතියට ඌනනය කරන බවයි. එහෙත් ප්‍රශ්නය ඇත්තේ සංස්කෘතියෙහිමයි. බටහිර විද්‍යාවේ බටහිර ක්‍රිස්තියානි සංස්කෘතියෙන් පිට සංස්කෘතියක සංස්කරණය කෙරෙන කතන්දරයක් (ප්‍රවාදයක්) පිළිගැනීමට ඇති සම්භාවිතාව කුමක් ද?
Senior U.S. lawmaker wants National
Academies to scrutinize racism in science
By Jeffrey Mervis Aug. 11, 2020 , 2:15 PM
The
U.S. research community may finally be ready to confront the “R” word.
In
response to a request from the chairwoman of the
science committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, the National Academies
of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is gearing up for an in-depth
study of racism in academic research.
Previous
NASEM studies have documented the value of diversity to the practice of science,
and recommended ways to broaden participation by groups historically
underrepresented in science. But the study proposed by Representative Eddie
Bernice Johnson (D–TX) would break new ground, say researchers who study the
topic, by asking the community to examine long-standing beliefs and practices
that have marginalized many individuals and skewed decisions on what topics are
worthy of support.
“There
is structural racism in the halls of academia,” says Freeman Hrabowski,
president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and architect of the
long-running Meyerhoff Scholars program, arguably the
country’s most successful at preparing minority college students for research
careers in biomedical science and engineering. “And it’s hindering our ability
to deal with some of our biggest challenges, including the current COVID-19
pandemic.”
“Fooled ourselves”
Johnson’s 29
July letter to Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences,
asks her to convene a “distinguished panel” that would conduct “a rigorous and
thoughtful analysis of the extent to which the U.S. scientific enterprise
perpetuates systemic inequities to the detriment of society as a whole, as well
as how those inequities are manifested.” Indirectly referencing the current
national debate over racism spawned by the death of George Floyd and the
resurgent Black Lives Matter movement, Johnson wrote that “it is incumbent upon
each of us to do what we can to address the systems that perpetuate inequities
within our own sphere of influence.”
McNutt
agrees. “I am quite excited about doing this study,” she told ScienceInsider.
She believes it could set the table for addressing systemic racism in academia
in the same way that a 2018 NASEM report on sexual harassment in academic
science catalyzed discussion and action. Before that
report, McNutt says, “we had fooled ourselves into thinking that the problem
had mostly been solved. We were so wrong. It had just gone underground. I worry
that it is the same story with racism.”
Digging
into the roots of racism in the U.S. research community may make some people
uncomfortable, say those who have studied the topic. But it’s necessary.
“People
who are successful scientists think that they got there because they are smart
and hardworking,” says Camara Phyllis Jones, an epidemiologist and former
president of the American Public Health Association, which has lobbied public
officials to declare racism a public health emergency. “They don’t realize that
their ability to do science has been advantaged—by white privilege, male
privilege, American privilege—and that many other smart and hardworking people
have been disadvantaged by not being a part of those privileged groups.”
Jones
is a member of NASEM’s Roundtable on Black Men and Women in Science,
Engineering, and Medicine, which was spawned by a 2018 NASEM report that
fingered systemic racism as a root cause in the current paucity of Black men
going into medicine. Launched late last year, the roundtable held a virtual
workshop in April on the “Impact of racism and bias on Black people pursuing
careers in science, engineering, and medicine.”
The
roundtable is well-positioned to take on the type of study that Johnson has
requested, says its chair, Cato Laurencin, a chemical engineer and orthopedic
surgeon at the University of Connecticut.
“We’re
the only long-term group at the Academy looking at issues of Black racial
justice and equity,” says Laurencin, who is a member of the national academies
of both medicine and engineering. “It is completely within our wheelhouse, and
we are very excited about the idea.”
Doors that stay closed
Some
academics may not be ready to talk about racism, Laurencin concedes. “It’s much
easier to talk about things like unconscious bias and the need for diversity,”
he notes. “Those words connote that we all mean well, and it’s simply a matter
of everyone doing a little better.”
But
racism is much more entrenched than that, says Hrabowski, who led a 2011 NASEM
study on expanding minority participation in science and more recently has
called for addressing the “intractable inequalities” that undermine the U.S.
research enterprise. So the new study, McNutt says, will need to assemble “data
and evidence” to document the negative impacts of racism before it makes any
recommendations.
Hrabowski
would like to see the new study focus on how academia can improve opportunities
for minority faculty members. “Our biggest mistake with Meyerhoff was assuming
that, once a Black person earned a Ph.D., they were set [for a successful
academic career],” he says. “But that’s just not true. Our white graduates have
always had more doors open to them than have our African-American students.”
As
a model for improving opportunity, he points to the long-running ADVANCE
program at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports efforts by
universities to achieve gender equity.
If
Johnson has her way, NSF would also fund the new initiative. A $1.3 trillion
spending bill that the House approved on 31 July contains a Johnson amendment
that orders NSF to spend $1.5 million on such a study in the 2021 fiscal year
that begins on 1 October. The Senate has yet to weigh in on the idea, however,
and the two bodies are unlikely to reconcile their differences over a final
spending bill until well after the November elections.
Another
option is for NASEM to self-finance the study, or find a nongovernment entity,
such as a foundation or company, to put up the necessary funds. But NASEM
officials say Congress is more likely to act on a report it has requested than
on one NASEM gins up by itself. That’s also true, they add, for the federal
agency that provides the money.
Whoever
foots the bill, NASEM officials say they can start laying the groundwork for
such a study even before the funding is settled. One task would be to define
the key questions the study would address, and the best ways to disseminate its
findings and implement its recommendations.
Jones,
for one, hopes the new study will lay to rest the pernicious idea of a racial
basis for genetic differences among humans, and the use of those differences to
justify discrimination. “Race is the social interpretation of how one looks in
a race-conscious society,” she says. “It’s a social classification, not a
biological classification.”
Jones
also thinks the panel should spend no time debating whether racism exists in
academic research. “Racism is fundamental in our society,” she asserts. “It
affects everything and everyone. And having someone say, ‘That’s not me’ does
not make it so.”
Posted in:
doi:10.1126/science.abe2818
Jeff
tries to explain how government works to readers of Science.