We Need To Talk About Diversity in Science

Summary

This video addresses the lack of diversity among the top 25 science YouTubers, highlighting the absence of women, Black people, Indigenous people, and those with disabilities. It discusses the historical roots of science in Eurocentric views and racism, and the impact of institutional racism in STEM. The hosts propose actionable steps for the science community to combat racism, including promoting diverse voices and pushing for representation in institutions like Google and Facebook. They emphasize the importance of diverse perspectives for scientific innovation and the need for ongoing efforts to challenge systemic biases.

Takeaways

• 📊 The top 25 science YouTubers list is predominantly white, with the first solo woman appearing at number 24, highlighting a lack of diversity.
• 🌐 The absence of Black people, Indigenous people, and people with disabilities on the list underscores the racial and inclusivity issues in STEM and science communication.
• 🔬 Historically, science has been Eurocentric and racist, with figures like Carl Linnaeus categorizing humans into subspecies based on false and prejudiced characteristics.
• 🏛️ Institutions like the American Museum of Natural History have perpetuated racist ideologies, such as eugenics, which influenced discriminatory policies like immigration restrictions.
• 🧠 The belief in the objectivity of science overlooks the inherent biases introduced by humans, affecting the questions asked, the studies conducted, and the conclusions drawn.
• 👩‍🔬 Research has shown that diverse perspectives in science lead to more innovative ideas and higher citation rates, indicating the value of inclusivity in scientific discourse.
• 🏥 Examples of anti-Black racism in STEM include disparities in medical treatment and the infamous Tuskegee Experiment, which exploited Black bodies without consent.
• 📈 Studies reveal that minorities face significant barriers in STEM, being less likely to have their research published or to be promoted, despite equal qualifications.
• 💼 Tech giants like Google and Facebook have workforces that are not representative of the broader population, with leadership positions being predominantly white and male.
• 📢 As creators and consumers, there is a call to action to promote and engage with diverse voices in science communication, challenging the status quo and advocating for change.

Q & A

What was the main topic discussed in the video?

The main topic discussed in the video was the issue of race and representation in the STEM community, particularly in science communication on YouTube, and the need to address institutional racism.

What was surprising about the top 25 science YouTubers list?

It was surprising that the list was predominantly white, with the first solo woman appearing at number 24, and no representation of Black people, Indigenous people, or people with disabilities.

How does the video relate historical science to current issues of racism?

The video connects historical science, which was often Eurocentric and racist, to current issues by showing how early classifications and misconceptions have influenced the lack of diversity in the field.

What example of historical racism in science was mentioned in the video?

The video mentioned Carl Linnaeus's incorrect classification of humans into four distinct subspecies based on race and stereotypes, which was adopted by the king of France and influenced later racist ideologies.

Why is diversity in science important according to the video?

Diversity in science is important because it brings different perspectives and experiences, which can lead to more innovative ideas and a broader understanding of scientific phenomena.

What is the 'Diversity Paradox' mentioned in the video?

The 'Diversity Paradox' refers to the finding that while minorities are more likely to have innovative ideas, they are less likely to be given academic positions or opportunities for advancement.

What are some tangible goals suggested in the video to change the institution of science?

Some tangible goals suggested include actively highlighting diverse voices in science communication, pushing for more diverse hiring and promotion initiatives within institutions, and advocating for transparency in recruitment practices from universities to tech companies.

How does the video suggest that creators can contribute to anti-racism?

Creators can contribute to anti-racism by making an effort to highlight and amplify voices that are different from their own, and by being more inclusive in the content they produce.

What role do social media platforms play in perpetuating or addressing racial bias, as discussed in the video?

Social media platforms play a significant role in racial bias through their algorithms and content promotion policies. The video suggests that these platforms should be more transparent about their workforce diversity and the design of their algorithms.

What action does the video encourage viewers to take?

The video encourages viewers to acknowledge their own biases, push themselves to engage with diverse perspectives, and participate in discussions and actions that challenge institutional racism in science.

Outlines

00:00

🔬 Diversity and Representation in Science YouTubers

The video begins with the hosts discussing the lack of diversity among the top 25 science YouTubers, which are predominantly white and male. They express surprise and disappointment at the absence of women, Black people, Indigenous people, and people with disabilities in this list. The conversation then shifts towards the broader issue of race in the STEM community, particularly in science communication on YouTube. They aim to discuss institutional racism within the scientific community and propose actionable goals to address this issue.

05:01

📚 Historical Bias and Current Challenges in STEM

The hosts delve into the historical roots of science, highlighting the Eurocentric and racist perspectives that have shaped scientific thought. They discuss the impact of these biases on the representation and participation of different racial and ethnic groups in science. The conversation includes examples of modern-day institutional racism, such as disparities in medical treatment, research publication biases, and the underrepresentation of minorities in academic positions. They also introduce the 'Diversity Paradox,' where despite being more likely to have innovative ideas, minorities are less likely to be given academic positions or job opportunities.

10:02

🌟 Actionable Steps for Combating Racism in Science

The video concludes with the hosts suggesting tangible steps to combat racism in the scientific community. They emphasize the importance of recognizing and addressing unconscious biases and the need for more diverse representation in scientific institutions. The hosts propose that creators should highlight diverse voices and that institutions should be more transparent about their hiring and promotion practices. They also call for greater scrutiny of the algorithms used by social media platforms and a push for more inclusive hiring practices in tech companies. The hosts invite viewers to engage in the conversation, share their experiences, and continue the discussion on challenging institutional racism in science.

Keywords

💡Institutional Racism

Institutional racism refers to the ways in which racial discrimination is embedded within the policies, practices, and structures of social, economic, and political institutions. In the video, the creators discuss how this form of racism is perpetuated in the STEM community and science communication, leading to an underrepresentation of people of color in top science YouTube channels. The video emphasizes the need to address and change these institutional biases to create a more inclusive scientific community.

💡STEM

STEM is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, and it represents the fields of study and work that are often at the forefront of innovation and discovery. The video script highlights the lack of diversity within the STEM community, particularly in terms of race and gender, and calls for a more inclusive approach to both education and representation in these fields.

💡Bias

Bias, in the context of the video, refers to the prejudices or preconceived notions that individuals hold, which can influence their actions and decisions. The script discusses how bias can lead to systemic issues within scientific institutions, such as the underrepresentation of certain groups in research and the perpetuation of stereotypes that affect patient care in medical settings.

💡Diversity Paradox

The Diversity Paradox is a concept mentioned in the script that highlights a contradiction where minority groups are more likely to produce innovative ideas due to their diverse perspectives, yet they are less likely to be given academic positions or opportunities for advancement. The video uses this term to illustrate the challenges faced by underrepresented groups in the scientific community and the need for institutions to recognize and address these disparities.

💡Representation

Representation in the video refers to the presence and portrayal of different groups of people, particularly those that are underrepresented, in various fields such as science, media, and education. The script argues that having diverse representation in these areas is crucial for inspiring and encouraging individuals from different backgrounds to pursue careers in science and for fostering a more inclusive scientific community.

💡Systemic Change

Systemic change refers to the process of altering the fundamental structures and systems that perpetuate inequality or discrimination. In the video, the creators discuss the need for systemic change within scientific institutions to address and dismantle institutional racism and to promote a more equitable and diverse scientific community.

💡Eugenics

Eugenics is a discredited scientific theory that sought to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding. The video script references historical instances of eugenics, such as the American Museum of Natural History's exhibition on the topic, to illustrate how racist ideologies have been perpetuated within scientific institutions and how these ideologies have had real-world consequences, such as influencing immigration policies.

💡Taxonomy

Taxonomy is the scientific classification of organisms into groups based on shared characteristics. The video discusses how early taxonomies, such as those developed by Carl Linnaeus, were influenced by racist beliefs and led to the categorization of humans into distinct subspecies based on skin color and perceived characteristics. This term is used in the script to highlight the historical biases within scientific practices.

💡Historical Bias

Historical bias refers to the prejudices and discriminatory practices that have been embedded in the historical development of a field, such as science. The video script uses examples from the history of science to demonstrate how these biases have shaped the field and led to the exclusion or marginalization of certain groups, emphasizing the need to recognize and address these historical injustices.

💡Anti-Racism

Anti-racism is the active opposition to racism by promoting the idea that racial groups are equal and by supporting policies that reduce racial inequalities. In the video, the creators discuss the importance of anti-racist practices within scientific institutions and the role that individuals can play in advocating for and implementing these practices to create a more equitable scientific community.

💡Discrimination

Discrimination refers to the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially based on race, age, or sex. The video script addresses various forms of discrimination within the scientific community, such as the underrepresentation of certain groups in scientific research and the biases that can affect patient care in medical settings.

Highlights

Mitch and Greg discuss the lack of diversity among the top 25 science YouTubers.

The first woman appears at number 24 on the list, with no representation from Black, Indigenous, or disabled creators.

The conversation turns to the historical roots of science and how it was shaped by a Eurocentric view.

Carl Linnaeus's taxonomy is critiqued for its racist classification of human 'subspecies'.

The impact of false science on historical policies, such as U.S. border closures, is discussed.

The myth of science being unbiased is challenged, emphasizing the need for human introspection.

The importance of diverse perspectives in scientific study and learning is highlighted.

Examples of research on anti-Black racism in STEM are presented.

The Tuskegee Experiment is cited as an infamous example of unethical scientific practices.

The underrepresentation of Black and South Asian people in genomic research is discussed.

The 'Diversity Paradox' is introduced, where minorities are more innovative but less likely to be recognized.

Greg and Mitch propose actionable steps for the scientific community to address racism.

The role of social media platforms in perpetuating systemic racism is examined.

Statistics on the racial and gender demographics of tech companies like Google and Facebook are shared.

The importance of diverse voices in science for innovation and citation rates is emphasized.

The video concludes with a call to action for continuous work against institutional racism in science.

Transcripts

- Today's video is going to be a little bit different

'cause it's pretty rare for us to sort of sit down

and talk a little more candidly but Greg was looking up

something in the day we wanted to share.

- Yeah, I looked up the top 25 science YouTubers.

This is based on subscribers.

Putting the list together was kind of striking.

- You have Vsauce, The Slow Mo Guys, Mark Rober,

In a Nutshell, The King of Random, Crazy Russian Hacker,

Crash Course, AsapScience.

- [Mitch And Greg] That's us.

- If you couldn't tell from the photo.

- [Mitch] Smarter Every Day, Veritasium, Sci Show,

Doctor Mike, Minute Physics, CGP Grey Vsauce2,

Backyard Scientist, Vsauce3, Numberphile,

It's Okay to be Smart, 3Blue1Brown, Tom Scott,

Real Engineering, Minute Earth, Simone Giertz,

and PBS Space Time.

- There's a lot to talk about here

when it comes to gender, gender non-binary people.

- The first woman on the list, solo woman at least,

is number 24.

There are no Black people.

There are no Indigenous people.

There are no people with disabilities.

- The fact that this list is all white, I was surprised,

but I also then wasn't surprised.

This is an issue that we wanna talk about today

in the STEM community.

- And specifically in science and in science communication

on YouTube because that's the bubble

that we all kind of live and work in

and engage with every day.

- And what we wanna talk about today is race

in regards to the very significant shift

in I think a lot of, especially white people's ability

to talk about institutional racism.

We wanna talk about it with some science today,

but also give a tangible goal that we can all do

to change the institution of science.

- If you took science courses,

think about the history you learned.

Whose faces were represented?

Who was even allowed to participate in science?

Were women allowed?

Were people of color allowed?

- Did queer people exist?

They did, they did. (indistinct)

- But there's that conversation if you think

the foundation of science was kind of born out of whiteness

and born out of this sort of Eurocentric view

of how people lived there.

- Early science and taxonomy led by Carl Linnaeus

incorrectly posited that humans fell

into four distinct subspecies:

homo sapiens europaeus, the people of Europe who were white,

serious, and strong;

homo sapiens asiaticus, the people of Asia who were yellow,

melancholy, and greedy;

homo sapiens americanus, the people of America who were red,

ill-tempered, and subjugated;

and homo sapiens afer, the people of Africa who were black,

and passive, and lazy.

And Carla Linnaeus even speculated privately

that they might not even be human at all.

There was a historic moment when science started

to distance itself from religion and hold its own power,

and the power was incorrect and racist.

The king of France at the time ordered this taxonomy

to be adopted as the correct classification system

of humans, and as recent as 1921,

the American Museum of Natural History held an exhibition

on eugenics which falsely claimed that Black people's brains

were smaller than white peoples.

Charles Darwin's son attended the event

and adopted the idea of racist eugenics.

The proliferation of this false science

led to the U.S. borders closing to people from Asia, Africa,

Southern and Eastern Europe

because ill-informed and racist scientists of the time

thought people from these countries were mentally defective

and biologically undesirable.

People really do have a fundamental belief

that science isn't biased.

We just have to say we disagree with that.

- Even if the idea of science in and of itself

is this pure form,

the second you introduce humans into that

you introduce bias.

- Look at the question, look at the discussion

at the end of every study,

that's when people start to fling around their feelings.

- The way that we study science

and the things that we learn about,

if they're led by a homogenous group,

we're really only learning about one lens of life.

- A good scientist takes in information

and changes their worldview.

So they are adaptable.

So I do think that as a science community, we can, you know,

fight institutionalized racism potentially more easily,

'cause we are willing to take in the facts

and to make changes based on them.

- Here are some examples of research

on anti-Black racism and STEM.

- Studies have found that white doctors are less likely

to prescribe Black patients medication for blood clots.

They believe racist myths about Black people.

For example, that they have higher pain tolerance

and thicker skin.

They themselves don't feel like they're being racist,

but within their institutions,

they are acting with institutionalized racism.

- There are even infamous scientific experiments

that have used Black bodies without their consent

for the benefit of science.

So the Tuskegee Experiment is a famous example

where they use around 600 Black men with syphilis

and told them they were getting treated,

but they actually weren't so that they could study

what happens when syphilis goes untreated for 40 years.

And this was without consent.

- The most recent "Nature" magazine,

and there's a study about how they're conglomerating

a bunch of genomic research, fascinating research

to understand humans and to understand diseases in humans.

And at the end they say there were very few Black people,

very few South Asian people.

That's an example of today

an institution finding breakthroughs and research

and very important genomic information to help

our health that is ignoring a whole population of people

due to a system.

- There's also a lot of research on research.

So minorities are less likely

to have their research published.

They're less likely to be given raises or rewards,

even when they're at the same level

as their white colleagues.

There's also something really interesting

called the Diversity Paradox.

So they found that minorities are more likely

to have innovative ideas,

they're bringing in new perspectives for science,

but they're less likely to be given academic positions.

Studies have shown that white people get

53% more callbacks than minorities,

and then even in those callbacks,

they've started to do studies of, okay,

who actually gets the job when they're equally equipped

or equally qualified for the job.

White people end up getting the job

143% more often than minorities.

Yes, we can say we just wanna hire the best person

and put the most talented person in that position,

but I think we just have to acknowledge

that we all have biases that are unintentional,

that impact what it means to be the best candidate.

And if we can't acknowledge that root problem,

then we'll never even be able to address

sort of the more surface problems.

- Now we should talk about something that we can do.

If we are in the sciences, when we enter rooms,

when we enter meetings, if everyone happens to be white,

I think that's an important time to talk about anti-racism.

I think a lot of work can be done in rooms of white people

'cause we know those meetings are happening, okay.

We are in them all the time.

A fellow science communicator and friend Dr. Esther told us,

"It is not up to marginalized people to be burdened

"with making systemic change in institutions."

- I think as creators, we can all be putting in more effort

to highlight other voices that are different from ours.

How can we as a community, including us,

look to people that have different perspectives?

- [Greg] Dr. Esther we'll teach you fascinating stories

about marginalized figures in STEM,

Jordan Harrod can teach you about

how AI preserves systemic racism,

Mike Likes Science can teach you a rap about coding,

Jabrils can show you how AI can draw

new Pokemon with math,

Jaida Elcock on TikTok is so funny

and will teach you about animal facts,

and Anna Gifty, another amazing friend on Twitter,

will blow your mind and she actually was able to make us

even like economics.

- But we also think we really need

to talk about the institutions.

So obviously we make a lot of content on YouTube,

but also Facebook and Instagram and all of these platforms

that play a role in this.

And I think as viewers and as creators,

there are ways that we can influence

and impact those groups as well.

- In 2019, Google's workforce was 54.4% white,

39.8% Asian, 5.7% Latinx, 3.3% Black,

and 0.8% Native American.

So these stats are for America.

2019 Google's leadership was 66.6% white,

28.9% Asian, 3.3% Latinx, 2.6% Black, 0.7% Native American.

And also staggering, Google's workforce is only 31.7% women

and their leadership is only 26.1% women,

assuming gender binaries.

They didn't have information

about gender nonconforming people.

In 2019, Facebook's workforce was 44.2% white,

43% Asian, 5.2% Hispanic, 3.8% Black, 3.1% mixed,

and 0.7% other.

Looking at leadership, 65.4% were white,

24.9% Asian, 3.5% Hispanic, 3.1% Black, 2.9% mixed,

0.3% other.

This shows you how the higher you go up

in all of these institutions, the whiter it gets.

So we need to talk not only about hiring diverse people,

but also creating better promotion initiatives

to get different people to the top

creating cultures where people of diverse backgrounds

actually wanna work at these companies.

Like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Silicon Valley startups

should have to openly disclose which universities

they are recruiting from.

In America, how many are they hiring

from predominantly white schools like Stanford or MIT

compared to HBCUs like Howard or Alabama A&M?

Facebook has currently been accepting

paid political advertising on their platform,

regardless of if it has false claims or hate speech.

They say they do not want to be the arbiter of truth,

but their algorithms already control our truth.

They decide what we see, what goes viral,

and what shows up on your timeline.

And 90% of hate speech on Facebook is identified by AI.

Who designs this technology is integral to it working.

What I am asking for is public information

about the breakdown of race and gender representation

in specific jobs.

'Cause I'm curious who is building these algorithms

that are controlling what we all see.

It's about arming ourselves with that information

to challenge when we're in those meetings,

to talk to people in positions of power at Facebook

or Instagram or Google.

- At large, we also see in science when you have

more diverse voices, you get different perspective.

- Yeah, so that's a really amazing study.

Over 2.5 million papers they looked at

and they studied the last names of the papers

and they found that the more diverse those last names were,

the more likely those journal articles,

scientific articles, were to be cited.

And assuming that citation actually means

that the, you know, journals are more meaningful or valid.

That's like, to me, a really tangible, fascinating study

about how diverse perspectives

make things better and flourish.

- Why does it matter at all?

Apart from the fact that we're seeing things

like expressed in police brutality against Black people,

I think even as queer people,

we know representation matters.

There's so many studies that show if you can see yourself

in a position.

So if you, as a queer young person, see other queer people

in science, it can inspire you.

If you're a young Black person

and see representation of Black people as scientists,

as science communicators, in programming that represents

like learning and education,

you're much more likely to be inspired to do that

because you see a space for yourself.

I would love to hear other people's experiences

in the comments because sometimes, I mean,

we like to quote a lot of research.

There's research that shows that focusing

on individual stories actually can change people's minds.

It's harder to acknowledge and see systemic racism,

but when you have a tangible story, it matters a lot.

And so I think it's important for people

to share their stories, no matter what your perspective,

no matter what makes you unique in this science space.

You shouldn't stop watching the people you like.

It has nothing to do with that.

A lot of people are making amazing content,

but maybe just push yourself outside

of your comfort zone sometime.

If we can stop and acknowledge our own biases,

I think that would be an amazing step forward

in just making science an even more amazing field.

- If this sparked any ideas for you,

you can write in the comments below

and we will continue to answer those questions.

We wanna keep talking about this.

The work that we have to do

to challenge institutional racism starts now.

It's about moving forward.

It's not something that we just involved ourselves in

for two weeks while the cultural zeitgeist was there.

The real work starts now.

So yeah, let us know if you want us to make a video

about affirmative action, make a video about something else.

We would love to do that,

to be motivated by you to keep going.