It’s hard to fully encompass all the ways that the average global citizen benefits from modern science: it fuels our cars, treats our diseases, and grows our food. While any demographic can profit from Western science now, that wasn’t always the case. The truth is modern science is built on the bones of imperialism (and therefore colonialism), and the scientific community can do more to acknowledge and grow from this unfortunate and haunting past.
Infamously, the British doctor Sir Ronald Ross gave a lecture in 1899 where he proposed that “the success of imperialism in the coming century will depend largely upon success with the microscope.” By making scientific and medical strides with a microscope, the knowledge gained was used to bolster the health and ability of British troops to continue their conquest for land. This single quote shows how science and imperialism were previously intertwined, fueling each other.
At the time of British imperialism, Western science was deemed the only correct form of science. British politician, Thomas Macaulay, said that Sanscrit and Arabic texts taught false history, false astronomy, and false medicine. This erroneous way of thinking was shared by scientists too. Charles Darwin, the father of natural selection, believed that Africans and Australians were more closely related to apes than Europeans. Non-Europeans were deemed inferior and uncivilized, and these perceived qualities were what Britain used to justify colonization out of goodwill.
While few could argue that the same level of imperialism is practiced today, modern science still suffers from echoes of it. Many STEM students are familiar with the story of Watson and Crick’s stolen research — although they should be known more as Watson and Crook! They, together with Maurice Wilkins, won the 1962 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure. They were pioneers of their time — until you consider that they used the work of Rosalind Franklin, a distinguished Jewish and female chemist, without her knowledge or consent.
Another example of how minorities have been undermined in science are HeLa cells. In 1951, Henrietta Lacks, an African-American woman, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cervical cancer where tissue samples were taken and passed along to researchers without her knowing. They found that her cancer cells (now known as HeLa cells) were able to survive outside the human body.
Although she’s passed on, her cell line remains alive today and is widely used for biomedical research. This has resulted in lucrative and groundbreaking discoveries, but despite this, Lacks’s family has little rights to her cells and has received no financial compensation.
This controversy continues today as Lacks’ eldest son and two grandsons sue for guardianship and compensation for her cells. It opens up a much-needed discussion on ethics, informed consent, and privacy concerns, but also shows the fingerprints of colonialism. The hospital Lacks was admitted to was racially segregated at the time, and it’s doubtful that the situation would have played out identically if Lacks had instead been white. The fact that she was a black woman ties into how healthcare professionals and researchers ignored her rights.
Bringing us to the modern day, Samantha Yammine, a Toronto neuroscientist, promotes science communication on her Instagram. This year on the International Day of Women and Girls in Science (Feb. 11), Yammine encouraged her followers to question who’s still being left out of the discussion. She posted her criteria for deciding whether to participate in events, which included questions like the following: is there a land acknowledgement? Is the venue accessible to those with physical disabilities? Are the speakers racially diverse? Is there financial support for attendees in need?
In a related Instagram post, Yammine said: “‘Women and girls’ is a broad category with a lot of variation — there are women and girls who are disabled, queer, black, trans, Indigenous, low income … We need all of these women and girls represented because each aspect of our identity affects our perspectives on science, our access to it, and the support we may need to thrive.”
What should we strive for then? Being aware of the problem is the first step; education is key, especially in terms of learning from and listening to disenfranchised perspectives. If you’re in a position of power, use that authority to help make science accessible to everyone and support minorities. If a research project is being done on recognized Indigenous land, talk with the appropriate Indigenous people to find out if that land can be used for your purposes. On that note, science can also be greatly developed by welcoming Indigenous knowledge and science rather than dismissing it.
When it comes to diversifying science, everyone wins: innovation blooms, research becomes less biased, and new issues get explored. There are innumerable ways that modern scientists can make a difference, and although the work to erase the imperialism of the past is daunting, it’s also doable. Western science is no longer a boy’s club, and the modern scientific community needs to reflect that.
Chandy is a biology major/chemistry minor who's been a staff writer, Arts editor, and Managing Editor at The Cascade. She began writing in elementary school when she produced Tamagotchi fanfiction to show her peers at school -- she now lives in fear that this may have been her creative peak.
