It is necessary to think about power relations in science and journalism – 12/04/2023 – Ciência Fundamental

I would like to ask the editors of the blog for permission to, instead of talking about science, address science journalism — which is, in itself, a vital area for scientific production and for keeping its processes under public scrutiny. I hope the scientists reading this column agree with me.

For those who know and experience journalism from the inside, and know that the craft has never been recognized for its diversity, the mixture of colors and origins present at the last World Conference on Science Journalism — WCSJ, in the English acronym — was a pleasant surprise. Between March 27th and 31st, Medellín, Colombia, hosted the 12th edition of the event, the second in a city in the global South — the first was in 2011, in Doha, Qatar.

If a second conference of this size (the most important in the area) only took place in the global South after ten years of the previous one, and for the first time in Latin America, that says something about world science journalism. And it is also a harbinger that the winds, which have blown towards the global North for so long, appear to be shifting.

The overwhelming participation of journalists from the region — from Mexicans and Peruvians to Argentines, Chileans, Brazilians, Bolivians and, of course, Colombians — and also from South Asian and African colleagues proved this change of direction, detected in their different colors and trajectories.

I explain my astonishment: according to a survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, in several parts of the world, including Brazil, journalism in large newsrooms is mostly white and middle class. The demographics don’t differ much from that of scientists: in both science and journalism, the gender imbalance in leadership positions still screams. Really loud.

Another indication that the winds are changing was the content of the discussions. The inequality of access to the exercise of science and scientific journalism was on the agenda, emerging as one of the main barriers to greater diversity in both fields the so-called scientific colonialism — the reproduction in the world of science of the logic of domination of Western countries over others . Also on the agenda was the debate on gender equity in scientific research and the need to include traditional voices and knowledge in the formulation of scientific policies, in actions to preserve biodiversity — and in the daily activities of science itself.

Can we coexist without subjugating?

Biologist Brigitte Baptiste, dean of EAN University in Bogotá, teased: “Can we, as humans, generate a shared understanding of global biodiversity without imposing a narrative?” Could it be that, if we, Latin Americans and peoples of the global South, were to colonize Europe, would this way of relating to the world also be colonialism? Would the imposition of ways of life and knowledge be the only possibility of coexistence?

The question makes sense. Everything we know, especially in the global South, given our long history of colonization and expropriation, originates from a creation of knowledge that is, above all, extremely violent, since it is imposing. Western science with European roots has struggled for centuries to supplant local and traditional knowledge from countries invaded by Europeans. Under heavy fire, science is the target of mistrust on many fronts because it represents, as Baptiste well recalled, “a threat to diversity”.

For a long time, Western science excluded other ways of knowing the world, and it was considered the last word to end any and all discussions. It was as if it were an almost magical solution to any and all problems, developed by beings illuminated by an unusual intelligence, different from us, the other mortals.

Feeling cut off from the process of creating scientific knowledge, many people have turned to conspiracy theories, false cures and other seemingly nonsensical ideas. The avalanche of anti-scientificism that floods social networks, instrumentalized by orchestrated disinformation campaigns, is the outpouring of a process that took years to build. Outlandish theories and the rejection of science are nothing new, but it is now that they are knocking at the door of researchers — and, consequently, of journalists as well — in a much more audible way. After all, for a long time we contributed to the view of Western science as a kind of hermetic black box, impossible to unravel.

Brigitte Baptiste goes further: distrust of journalism and science is also rooted in the belief that both benefit from spurious ties with big industries and figures in power, rather than worrying about the common good of citizens . Scientists and journalists would need to do some urgent self-criticism. For this, they can use tools from areas such as gender studies, philosophy and sociology, which already have the habit of questioning their certainties. And, above all — and especially in the moment in which we live —, indigenous and traditional knowledge.

Think about power relations and make them more complex in order to survive

Authors such as Ailton Krenak have been saying for a long time that, if Western science was used as an instrument to subdue and colonize, it is necessary to decolonize it, that is, to face these power relations, in order to invent new ways of inhabiting the world. Because, to arrive at the current state of crisis — social, ecological, civilizational — it is evident that the path we are following is not working.

Science as we know it does not need to be an opposition to the traditional knowledge that has accompanied humanity for millennia. There are countless possibilities for joint creation that are already beginning to emerge in many corners of the planet, especially in the global South. Scientific journalism can reflect this revolution by making its narrative more complex. If before science was narrated as an almost magical black box, it is past time for journalism to open this box and invite people to look inside it.

And this will not be done by middle-class people looking at the world from their whiteness and the privileges that guaranteed them a desk in some newsroom. It needs to be done by people from different social classes and origins so that readers — diverse, they too — feel comfortable enough to trust those who call them to look inside the black box. It is necessary, as Baptiste rightly recalled, “avoid simplicity” and embrace complexity and the new language that the moment demands. It takes work, but you have to try. To survive, both science and the journalism that talks about it need to decolonize.

*

Meghie Rodrigues is a science journalist.

The blog Ciência Fundamental is edited by Serrapilheira, a private, non-profit institute that supports science in Brazil. Sign up for the Serrapilheira newsletter to keep up with news from the institute and the blog.