Systemic racism has driven elk, muskox from urban slums, causing emotional harm to residents and the evicted aike

demand bio-diversity!

So say two “scientists”, using other people’s money for their “research”

Scientists claim that there are fewer wild animals in neighborhoods where mostly people of color live - and their absence is affecting residents' mental health.

A research study that looked into the genetic diversity of wildlife in neighborhoods across the United States found government rules that previously mandated separated neighborhoods based on race, is still having lingering after-effects on where animals choose to live decades on. 

The study suggests that areas where mostly white people live have a greater diversity when it come to animals living in the area. 

Areas with less diversity could also be having negative effects on both the mental and physical health of the people who live in such 'deprived' neighborhoods. 

The findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

This offers a neat illustration of what’s happening in modern scientific research: grants are awarded, and papers are published afterward, only for projects that promise to produce results “proving” socially-acceptable tenets. Systemic racism, global warming, transgenderism in infants? No researcher who wants to keep his job at a university is going to waste his time on an objective search for factual data on anything in these currently popular topics, nor will he dare come to a conclusion that disagrees with the accepted Truth. Want grant money? Don’t bother attempting to get it for a proposal to study the limb-regenerative powers of newts unless you intend to tie it in to the effects of global warming on the phenomenon, or how slavery caused newts to lose their legs in the first place.

Even then, your grant proposal should make clear that you do not intend to use the results to explore the possibility of helping humans grow back their own limbs, or you’d be accused of “ableism”, and fired on the spot.

Here’s a bit more from the muskox study:

The authors of the study claim that systemic racism has effectively altered the demography of urban wildlife populations in a way that shapes their evolution and impacts their presence in cities. 

The pair argue that the lack of urban biodiversity has resulted in a negative impact on human well-being, leading to a complete absence of nature in neighborhoods that are predominantly non-white.

The report calls for reforms to be made in city planning in the hopes a more  equitable distribution of natural habitat will also lead to increased racial diversity. 

The authors also suggest the need for increased racial diversity in the fields of ecology and evolution to address such 'blind spots' in research and 'environmental justice'. 

That’s the kind of language needed to keep the money flowing.

Here, from New Zealand, are guidelines for science teachers hoping to bring their students into the brave new world of contemporary knowledge. It all sounds reasonable — certainly one should question assumptions, and challenge dogma, but not when this stuff is taught by people who claim that “rational, linear thinking” is a sign of white supremacy: witchcraft and “feelings” are the new gold standard.

The inferential, imaginative and creative nature of science

Creativity in research design can be seen in all of the New Zealand research stories. These stories challenge the myth that there is one universal way to do science, commonly referred to as ‘the scientific method’. The history of science shows that no single method can be used. Rather, there are many ways to investigate problems in science.

The subjective and theory-laden nature of science

Different scientists can interpret the same datasets differently. How can this be so? Scientists do strive to be objective, but it is just not possible to make truly objective observations and interpretations without any bias. A scientist’s mind is not a blank slate. Individual scientists have their prior knowledge, theoretical beliefs, experiences, cultural background, training, expectations and biases, each of which will affect their observations and conclusions. All observation is preceded by theory and conceptual knowledge. Science tries to overcome this lack of pure objectivity through the scientific community, which scrutinises scientific work and helps balance individual scientists’ leanings.

Many of the teaching and learning activities could be used to demonstrate to students how much prior knowledge they bring to any science investigation.

The socially and culturally embedded nature of science

All scientific knowledge is produced within a larger society and culture. This means that the social and cultural elements such as politics, economics, power structures, religion and philosophy will affect the science knowledge produced and how it is accepted. This also means that the direction and the products of science will be greatly influenced by the society and the culture in which the science is conducted.

As societies change, so do scientific priorities. For example, during the first half of the 20th century, two World Wars dominated society and so governments made funding available for research with wartime applications. Science moved in that direction and nuclear energy was unlocked. Science changes to reflect shifts in society and its priorities.