Question

What experiences have shaped your views on the value of diversity in the sciences?*

Answer 1

If we think of science as a competition of ideas and theories, then the best and most useful theory should (and usually does) come out on top. Even the most cherished and time-tested model is discarded if new evidence and new ideas leads to a better one. Our process of peer review is designed to filter out weak models and weak evidence. This merit-based approach has been wildly successful.

But while science strives to be fair and unbiased in its testing of ideas, the process is colored by the fact that scientists are human. We all approach the world with a perspective created by our personal experiences, and those experiences are deeply shaped by our socioeconomic, gender, racial and cultural heritage. No amount of scientific training will change that fact. While we can use scientific methods to filter the good scientific ideas from the bad, the origin of those ideas is still deeply dependent on the human equation. Quite simply, the wider we cast our net, the better science and all of us will be served.

In order for diversity to succeed we have to connect to a wider diversity of people and perspectives. We need to be challenged by ideas very different from our own, and we need to listen. While increasing the diversity of scientists can allow these kinds of connections to flourish.

  Scientific progress relies on problem solving and collaboration. Groups composed of people with diverse experiences and areas of expertise tend to be more creative and innovative

sking questions drives science forward, and scientists with different perspectives often ask different questions. Different questions can lead to new insights.

Diversity facilitates specialization. Scientists have different strengths and different interests. Not only do people from different backgrounds choose to investigate different questions, but they may approach the same question in different ways. So, the biologist with a penchant for math, the biologist with an interest in human behavior, and the biologist who can't get enough of microscopes and lab work can all focus on their strengths. While each might choose to tackle the same topic (say, human cognition), they will do so from different angles, contributing to a more complete understanding of the topic

Diversity invigorates problem solving. Science benefits greatly from a community that approaches problems in a variety of creative ways. A diverse community is better able to generate new research methods, explanations, and ideas, which can help science over challenging hurdles and shed new light on problems. For example, Albert Einstein approached the notions of space and time in a very different way from his contemporaries, coming up with ideas that, though unintuitive, were supported by evidence and opened up new areas of research.

Diversity balances biases. Science benefits from practitioners with diverse beliefs, backgrounds, and values to balance out the biases that might occur if science were practiced by a narrow subset of humanity. As an example, consider the ongoing scientific investigation of climate change. With such a hot-button issue, personal beliefs about the environment, the economy, business, and politics could unwittingly bias one's search for or assessment of the evidence. But science relies on a diverse community, whose personal views run the gamut: liberal to conservative, tree-hugging to business-friendly, and all sorts of combinations thereof. Scientists strive to be impartial and objective in their assessments of scientific issues, but in those occasional cases in which personal biases sneak in, they are kept in check by a diverse scientific community.

So science depends on diversity. If scientists were all the same, scientific controversy would be rare, but so would scientific progress! Despite their diversity, all of those individual scientists are part of the same scientific community and contribute to the scientific enterprise in valuable ways.