Written discussion questionsFrom Monday’s class on

intersectionality and Subramanium’s “Snow Brown”

Which ending(s) do you think best

reflects the state of science

education and practice in the U.S.

today…and why?

Your answers:• “The second ending asserts a more

inquisitive eye upon the scientific

structure and I would argue is a

better reflection of the current state

of science education in the U.S. It

asks the questions that are relevant

today and challenges existing power

structures.”

Your answers:

• “I agree that the 2nd ending is more like science

today: there are challenges to the power structure,

but it has not been removed. There is room for

many types of ideas and new perspectives, but

science is still limited within a specific community

and to those with the most education, rather than

being something everybody is able to join in the

conversation about.”

Your answers:

• “I believe we live in a society that

questions the patriarchy but does not

have the movement or progress of

developing equality like we should

have by now.”

Written discussion questions:

• If an appreciation for

intersectionality was the norm in

science, what outcome(s) would you

anticipate for science as a whole?

• (Positive and/or negative)

Your (positive) answers:

• “A new focus on overlooked areas of

study…”

• “It would bring us closer to ‘truth’…”

• “It would disrupt the system…[and]

conflict is necessary for solutions…”

Your (positive) answers:

• “I think that it could make science stronger, even

by its own criteria (objectivity, generalizability).

Being allowed to ignore vast swaths of experience,

data, and identities doesn’t improve knowledge;

it’s producing big blind spots, real weaknesses. I

definitely don’t think it would hurt anything, but

maybe it would produce more accurate theories

and better, more inclusive studies.”

Your (positive) answers:

• “Lead to greater access for

marginalized groups…”

• “could greatly diversify the field &

the world’s scientific knowledge…”

Your (mixed) answers:

• “It is good to appreciate different learning styles

but overall, science should state the facts.”

• “I disagree. I think that by welcoming

social issues, science would be viewed from all

angles in every kind of light. By competing as

well as cooperating, scientific knowledge might

expand tenfold.”

Your (mixed) answers:

• “I think consensus building and decision making would

go FAR more slowly, and it wouldn’t work in a

consumerist/capitalist society. However, it would be

great to include more versions of ‘the truth.’”

• “I agree: it would complicate things and not gel

well in certain societies. It would be much harder to

educate…but I feel it might give us a better shot at the

‘truth’ of science as well as bring up new ideas and

theories in research.”

Your (mixed) answers:“…could lead science education and research to be more open to what are

considered ‘fringe ideas’ …. But, it could also lead to such a concern for

everyone’s identities, that no real research gets done. The current system

DOES get things done, so if we completely overhaul it in favor of a more

intersectional one, we risk losing some of the conditions that facilitate

learning that we currently have. We have to recognize the positives in our

current system, and not just criticize the negatives.”

• “I think that the only risk could be overdoing intersectionality, but I

don’t think that risk is very high. I do think science and objectivity are

valuable; but applying intersectionality might improve science. Within

sociology, it could lead a researcher to considering whether their study

is really including everyone, in the right way, and make for a better

study.”

Your (mixed) answers:• “…Science would become better...however, this could

make some applications of science more difficult: would

medical practitioners in every country…need to learn to

practice a culturally-specific type of medicine? How

much of science would be re-written, and how would that

influence current technological advances? Would

engineers in different cultures be able to design similar

structures and machines, or would these be all different

as well? These are just some of the issues science would

need to navigate if Subramanium’s ‘postmodern fantasy’

became a reality.”

Your (negative/cautious) answers:

• “…making the science about the person who

performed it is not what science generally does.”

• “This would create bias …”

• “Adding more variables [in addition to gender]

would only create further basis for

discrimination.”

• “political correctness can run amok …”

Your (negative/cautious) answers:

• “If [intersectionality were taken seriously], the science

community wouldn’t get anything done because

financial backers don’t really care about…identities”

• “That’s an interesting perspective: you’re saying

that scientific research would essentially collapse?

How does one incentivize financial backers to

recognize intersectionality and place high monetary

value on it?”

Your (negative/cautious) answers:

• “the people with more experience would no

longer be the directors and as a consequence,

everyone would be in charge...”

• “People like to push norms, and if

[intersectionality] becomes the norm, people

might not push the boundaries as much as

they used to.”

“Feminist intersections in science: Race, gender, and sexuality through

the microscope”Lisa Weasel

Henrietta Lacks

• Rebecca Skloot, author of The

Immortal Life of Henrietta

Lacks (2010) & the Lacks

family on CBS Sunday Morning

“Either ignoring altogether or separating out categories such as race, class, ethnicity and gender for individual analysis can lead to skewed perspectives and fails to acknowledge important ways

in which social categories not only intersect but overlay one another” (184).

• How do you interpret what Weasel has

written here?

…on “naturecultures”

• What does Weasel mean when she

employs the term “naturecultures”?

• How is this concept relevant to the

goal of her essay?

According to Weasel, HeLa cells have recently been described as “a new

species” (186), “regress[ed],” occupying “an ecological niche extremely different from that of humans,” and “the weeds of cell

culture” (187). • Why does she find these characterizations

significant?

• Do you agree with her assessment? Why or why

not?

Even though Weasel is critical of how Henrietta Lacks’ cells were

taken, proliferated, and disseminated, she concludes by

discussing the “symbiosis” between science and society, and

science and feminism (190). • Why does she describe these relationships in

this manner? How do you interpret it?