Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective
By: D. Abbot, A. Bikfalvi, A.L. BleskeRechek, W. Bodmer, P. Boghossian, C.M. Carvalho, J. Ciccolini, J.A. Coyne, J. Gauss, P.M.W. Gill, S. Jitomirskaya, L. Jussim, A.I. Krylov, G.C. Loury, L. Maroja, J.H. McWhorter, S. Moosavi, P. Nayna Schwerdtle, J. Pearl, M.A. Quintanilla-Tornel, H.F. Schaefer III, P.R. Schreiner, P. Schwerdtfeger, D. Shechtman, M. Shifman, J. Tanzman, B.L. Trout, A. Warshel, and J.D. West.
Published: Apr 28, 2023
Abstract: Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with nonscientific, politically motivated criteria. We explain the philosophical origins of this conflict, document the intrusion of ideology into our scientific institutions, discuss the perils of abandoning merit, and offer an alternative, humancentered approach to address existing social inequalities.
1. Introduction
We live in an incredible time of human history. As Barack Obama said: “If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be—what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you’d be born into . . . you would choose right now.” While the benefits of significant global progress and economic development have not been shared equally, the world as a whole has never been healthier, wealthier, better educated, and in many ways more tolerant and less violent, than it is today.
How did we get here? Science provided solutions to such calamities as famine and plague, transforming them “from incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of nature into manageable challenges.” By improving the world economy and increasing global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world. Science eradicated smallpox, discovered penicillin, decoded the SARSCoV2 virus in a weekend, helped to halve the maternal and child mortality rate globally, revolutionized agriculture, contributed to extending life expectancy in every country, and has generally granted humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom. By increasing literacy and communication, science has promoted empathy and rational problemsolving, contributing to a global decline in violence of all forms.
Of course, serious problems continue to challenge us; poverty, inequality, wars, and violence persist. Climate change, biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic disease threaten global gains made over the past century. However, science continues to be the best tool humanity possesses to address these complex, collective challenges. Indeed, science holds the key to solving these problems—it provides the basis for renewable energy technologies, mitigating anthropogenic impact on the global climate, feeding the world’s growing population, controlling pandemics, and eradicating debilitating diseases. Of course, science alone is not sufficient: science is but a tool that can be used for good and bad. It is our responsibility as a society to use it responsibly, ethically, and effectively.
Fulfilling this responsibility, however, is being hindered by a new, alarming clash between liberal epistemology and identitybased ideologies. Liberal epistemology prizes free and open inquiry, values vigorous discourse and debate, and determines the best scientific ideas by separating those that are true from those that are likely not. The statuses, identities, and demographics of scientists are irrelevant to this great sifting of valid versus invalid ideas.
In contrast, identity-based ideologies seek to replace these core liberal principles, essential for scientific and technological advances, with principles derived from postmodernism and Critical Social Justice (CSJ), which assert that modern science is “racist,” “patriarchal,” and “colonial,” and a tool of oppression rather than a tool to promote human flourishing and global common good.
In this perspective, we explain the differences between the two epistemologies and argue that meritocracy (grounded in philosophical liberal epistemology), however imperfect, is the best and fairest way to conduct science. We endorse policies to mitigate existing inequalities of opportunities, but explain why CSJ-based policies are pernicious (CSJ differs from social justice as a concept). Therefore, we offer a liberal, humanistic alternative that is compatible with maximizing scientific advances.
[...]
7. The Way Forward
Science has been the driving force behind unprecedented improvements in the global quality of life—from advances in medical diagnostics and cancer treatment to the information technology revolution, from the growth of agricultural productivity to the development of sustainable energy. Science and technology are global and highly competitive. If dismantling the meritbased practices of the U.S. and other democratic countries continues unabated, the loss of leadership in developing cuttingedge technologies is likely to eventuate.
For science to succeed, it must strive for the nonideological pursuit of objective truth. Scientists should feel free to pursue political projects in the public sphere as private citizens, but not to inject their personal politics and biases into the scientific endeavor. Maintaining institutional neutrality is also essential for cultivating public trust in science. The rush to create systems institutionalizing racial, ethnic, and gender preferences in college admissions and hiring will further corrode public trust in academia and science (e.g., surveys from the U.S. show that most Americans, including most Americans of color, reject such preferences). Although no system is guaranteed to eliminate all biases, meritbased systems are the best tool to mitigate it. Moreover, they promote social cohesion because they can be observed to maximize fairness.
Admittedly, meritocracy is imperfect. The best and brightest do not always win. But the idea that meritocracy is nothing but a myth is demonstrably false, indeed absurd. Were it but a myth, college admissions and hiring could be conducted without regard to applicants’ qualifications, and students or employees could be selected at random.
The role of science in rectifying social inequalities goes beyond “trickledown” effects of scientific progress. Science can help to develop programs addressing both the root causes of inequalities and the effectiveness of remedial policies. Recent works by Banerjee and Duflo illustrate how wellfounded scientific methodology can narrow the gap between rich and poor countries. Heckman’s work quantifies the impact of preschool education on students’ success. In the field of artificial intelligence, one of the most active areas of research is concerned with discrimination, fairness, and social accountability. The distinctive features of these examples, setting them apart from CSJ, are that they are based on scientific evidence and logic and they address the root causes of inequalities, rather than their symptomatic manifestations.
There is a large literature in the field of psychology on the role that demographic biases play in how we judge individuals. Such biases are real and a justified concern, but fighting them with opposite biases and undermining merit is counterproductive. Two of the most robust findings in the literature are: (1) people massively judge others on their merits when their merits are clear and salient; and (2) in such situations, stereotypes and implicit biases are minimized. Thus, a sharp focus on merit minimizes bias and maximizes the chances that those who best meet the relevant standards (for admissions, hiring, publication, or anything else) will be rewarded, thereby promoting inclusion. For example, standardized tests can help to fairly evaluate applicants from diverse backgrounds and—if used properly—increase diversity. A strict focus on merit, properly implemented, also reduces the influence of bias, department politics, nepotism, and favoritism, thus facilitating diversity, while maximizing scientific quality and the public’s confidence and trust in the academy and science.
How do we begin the process of depoliticizing science and strengthening merit-based practices? We offer six concrete suggestions:
Insist that government funding for research be distributed solely on the basis of merit.
Ensure that academic departments and conferences select speakers based on scientific, rather than ideological, considerations.
Ensure that admissions, hiring, and promotion are meritbased and free from ideological tests.
Publish and retract scientific papers on the basis of scientific, not ideological, arguments or due to public pressure.
Require that universities enforce policies protecting academic freedom and freedom of expression, according to best practices promulgated by nonpartisan free speech and academic freedom organizations, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Insist that university departments and professional societies refrain from issuing statements on social and political issues not relevant to their functioning, as recommended in the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report.
Although much has been written about DEI, the arguments advocating it fall into familiar categories: reparative justice is needed to redress historical discrimination; DEI is necessary to fight current discrimination; and DEI is needed to level the playing field and achieve equal outcomes.
With respect to reparative justice, affirmative action policies are ineffective, arguably unfair, and counterproductive. Although we see no role in science for identitybased policies, we recognize that the playing field is not level. Outreach in admissions and hiring to candidates from less advantaged backgrounds is important, not only to promote fairness, but to enlarge the pool of promising candidates. Schools and universities have a role to play in leveling the playing field by uplifting students who have come from more difficult life circumstances, not by imposing quotas or lowering academic standards, but by providing students with opportunities to develop the rigorous skills they need to enter scientific fields, and the support to do so. In this way, merit and diversity become synergistic rather than antagonistic.
Advocates of CSJ approaches to DEI often present the options as if it is either CSJ or bigotry. We reject this false dichotomy. Dismantling or disrupting institutional practices that have produced science’s achievements, and replacing them with untested methods opposed to the Mertonian norms is a dangerous experiment that jeopardizes the future of science.
8. Conclusion
Imbuing science with ideology harms the scientific enterprise and leads to a loss of public trust. If we continue to undermine merit, our universities will become institutions of mediocrity rather than places of creativity and accomplishment, leading to the loss of the competitive edge in technology. Thus, we need to restore our commitment to practices grounded in epistemic humility and the meritocratic, liberal tradition.
We need to be vigilant against the dilution of our merit evaluations by biases, ideology, and nepotism. Moreover, as a community, we should continue to invest in mentoring and education to help people develop their full potential. Adopting the guidelines we have suggested does not mean that we ignore the contributions of past racism and sexism to the inequalities we observe today. It means addressing these issues in a fundamentally positive way—not by introducing diversity metrics into funding or hiring decisions, nor by weakening the standards for university admissions and professional advancement, but by investing in the early pipeline, for example, by strengthening educational outreach and programs to increase access to sustained quality education and early exposure to STEMM.
Scientists must start standing up for the integrity of their fields despite the risk of bullying and verbal attacks; donors and funders should condition their support on nonpartisan and rational scientific pursuit. Science as a free pursuit of knowledge untainted by ideological orthodoxies maximally enhances the public good.
9. Afterword
Perhaps the grandest irony of them all, and the saddest commentary on the state of academia, is that this article, defending merit, could only be published in a journal devoted to airing “controversial” ideas. As we were finalizing the manuscript for publication, the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House released a 14-page long vision statement outlining the priorities for the U.S. STEMM ecosystem. The word “merit” appears nowhere in the document. In February, 2023, The National Academy of Sciences released a report titled “Advancing Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM Organizations: Beyond Broadening Participation.” The report describes merit as a nonobjective, “culturally construed” concept used to hide bias and perpetuate privilege, refers to objectivity and meritocracy in STEMM as myths, and calls for merit-based metrics of evaluation to be dismantled.
==
When merit is a "controversial idea," that needs to be "dismantled," we're through the looking glass.
For anyone who is going to bald-faced lie and insist that "nObOdY iS dOiNg tHiS!" be aware they have a six-page bibliography with 149 citations. Start there, and good luck. And yes, it includes the notorious "Feminist Glaciology" paper.