Today, June 10th 2020, marks the day in which the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) communities were called to #ShutDownAcademia and to #ShutDownSTEM for the day to focus on educating ourselves on the realities of systemic racism and biases in STEM. The goal, as described by one of the organisers was to “reflect on [our] own complicity in anti-Black racism in academia and [our] local and global communities”.
In light of this call, today I chose to take the time to educate myself on and provide some examples of systemic racism and biases in the Biomedical Sciences field, and how this translates to everyday people and Scientists of colour (and minority groups).
It is no secret that in the past, Science was used as a means to associate race with intelligence, and that the basis of these early studies was used as a means to provide ‘evidence’ for the superiority of white people over black people and other minority groups. Moreover, these ‘findings’ (along with other westernised beliefs) were used to justify slavery, segregation and laws preventing people of colour their basic human rights (such as identity and education).
Did you know that when people of colour were enslaved in South Africa during Dutch and British colonisation, they were given new surnames pertaining to the month of the year that they arrived (e.g. January), thereby stripping them of their identity and historical routes?
The story of Henrietta Lacks (a black womxn who suffered with cervical cancer) and the controversial use of their cancer cells, without their consent or knowledge in the 1950s, for cancer research is well known to the scientific community. To this day, HeLa cell lines (as they are called) are still currently used for cancer research as well as other areas of research.
While Biomedical Scientists are quite familiar with the past, they are also quite aware of how the current system also fails to represent people of colour and minority groups. For example, a big area of research in the Biomedical Science field is the concept of ‘personalized medicine’. This concept is based on trying to understand the underlying genetic causes for disease, for example, and how this knowledge can be used to improve health. The discrepancy, however, lies in the fact that currently, the majority of genetic references that we have access to is of European descent. Another example, which we too are familiar with, is that clinical trials for medication are also mostly performed on individuals of European descent. As a result, people of colour, who are underrepresented in these trials, can have adverse reactions to approved medications because they metabolize drugs differently. In fact, in South Africa, it was shown that some HIV patients of African descent responded adversely to HIV medication because the medication was not tailored to their genetic make-up.
Failure to acknowledge underrepresentation in scientific research can also cause biased results in currently administered healthcare algorithms, which are meant to provide reliable information about access to health care. This is not the only area in which algorithms fail to represent people of colour and minority groups [see: Bias detectives: the researchers striving to make algorithms fair].
Did you know that photography was initially designed to consider the skin tone of white people, and that fixes to photography biases for Kodak, for example, was only initiated because of complaints from furniture and chocolate manufacturers?
The examples I have given thus far have not yet even considered how the system also fails to represent people of colour (and minority groups) with careers or aiming to pursue careers in STEM research. A recent article focusing on US PhDs, for example, concluded that “demographically underrepresented students innovate at higher rates than majority students, but their novel contributions are discounted and less likely to earn them academic positions”. This is indeed evident in the lack of diversity in tenure-track positions (not only pertaining to race, but also gender and the LGBTIQA+ community), and the microaggressions that people of colour and minority groups face in these environments.
Scientists are calling for transparency in diversity ratings, to hire more diverse staff members and to take the initiative to combat racism and biases within the Sciences. It is important for us as Scientists to have these conversations, to educate ourselves and others, and to not be afraid to start a dialogue about these issues in Research Meetings, Journal Clubs and within our networks – it is important for us to progress and push for change – not only in the way we conduct scientific research, but also in the way we think about scientific research.
I would like to end by highly recommending that you take the time to read through these actions steps at https://www.shutdownstem.com/action that you, your research group and your scientific community can take to be more aware about these issues and to start to initiate change. In addition, https://www.shutdownstem.com/who provides an overview of the many ways in which we truly do have influence.
“Education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world.” Nelson Mandela
[Disclaimer: This is of course only some examples, for which there are many others as this post is intended to encourage you, the reader, to learn more. More than that, it is not only today, but every day that I will devote time and energy to this cause and ask you to do the same. If you feel that something is unclear or requires more dialogue, please indicate that in the comments and I will discuss this and/or will adjust the text accordingly – it is important to be open and willing to discuss these issues.]
SciFact 