Researchers Claimed Evolutionary Biology Was ‘Ableist.’ Here’s How They Misrepresented The Data.

Daily Wire analysis found that a biology paper incorrectly represented data supporting its claim that evolutionary biology discriminates against people with disabilities. 

The paper “Discussions of the ‘Not So Fit’: How Ableism Limits Diverse Thought and Investigative Potential in Evolutionary Biology,” published American Naturalist published last year that evolutionary biology was being accused of “ableism.” This was demonstrated by the manipulation of statistics by the authors to make it appear that evolutionary biology is discriminatory towards disabled people. The authors incorrectly compared the rates of disability within evolutionary Biology to the general population. 

The paper suggests that concepts such “fitness” And “natural selection” —  foundational to the field of evolutionary biology, which studies the diversification and adaptation of life forms over time — are “harmful” And have been “weaponized against marginalized communities in the modern day.” And the authors’ thesis is that evolutionary biology’s use of purportedly “ableist” Terms and concepts discourage disabled people from studying in the field and are therefore more discriminatory than other areas. The authors argue that instead of drawing from other academic disciplines, they will use samples from their own. “the proportion of disabled evolutionary biologists is far below the population average.”

The authors compared a National Center for Science and Engineering Studies statistic (NCSES), which found 8.1% of disabled recipients of doctorates in the life sciences, with a CDC statistic. 26% Approximately 5% of the US population were disabled. This is a surprising fact. 26% Through the CDC stats were determined self-reportingBased on a 6-question set, the study included participants over 65 who have significantly higher rates age-related disabilities.

An alternative way to get a representative sample is to compare evolutionary biology and other academic fields. The same NCSES actually exists. data set The authors used comparable data from other disciplines in Table 28 to show that there was not much difference between disabled doctorate recipients in life sciences (9.8%), psychology/social sciences (9.9%), education (8.9%), mathematics/computer science (7.2%), and humanities/arts (11.1%) 

Image provided by NCSES 2020

The authors also cited another source. study Rushworth et.al. compared the 10.8% disability rates in evolution societies with the 26% CDC statistic. Rushworth et.al. did not mention that the Rushworth research itself recognized a “more conservative national estimate” 12.8% according to a US Census.

It is an intellectually demanding field that requires a field component to research. One might assume there would be fewer people who pursue evolutionary biology, but data shows that it is not as common as other academic fields. 

The publication’s former editor-in-chief, Dan Bolnick, said This particular paper was a “special issue” That “invited papers at the intersection of humanities and sciences,” And that it was reviewed and approved by a “special team” That included humanities researchers who didn’t include them. “usual board.”  

Jerry CoyneA prolific evolutionary biologist, and the author of the best-selling book, “Why Evolution Is True,” Hosts a website under the same name, where he recently reviewed The paper. 

“First, it’s one of the more ludicrous examples of science policing I’ve seen,” Coyne agreed, saying he supports accommodation for people with disabilities to have the same opportunities. “Second, it shows how the American Society of Naturalists, which publishes the journal, has gone down the same woke road as the other ecology and evolution societies.”

The paper makes several suggestions to rectify evolutionary biology’s ableist past, which mostly include changes to terminology they deem offensive and providing a chart with alternative language that should be used.

“According to the authors, the field is rife with words like ‘mutant/wild type,’ ‘fitness optimum,’ ‘mutations’ (We should really say) ‘base pair change’), and ‘optimization,’” said Coyne. “The paper ends with a demand — not a request — that we purge evolutionary biology of ableist language.”

Perhaps most concerning is their call for an overhaul of foundational concepts in evolutionary biology, such as “fitness.” Within the context of evolutionary biology, fitness refers to measures of reproductive success, not the condition of an individual organism being physically fit.

“The authors’ Discussions are muddled by the use of ‘fitness’ Similar to ‘able-bodied,’ It means that ‘lower fitness’ is somehow a slur on the disabled,” said Coyne. “In our field, the term was not used to denigrate the disabled, but simply to express the relative number of copies of a given gene variant in the next generation compared to alternative variants of the same gene.” 

“The authors also disparage the use of the term ‘survival of the fittest’ because, they argue, it not only disparages handicapped people, but has led to social darwinism, a philosophy embraced by capitalists,” He added.

Apart from ableism the authors also accuse the field evolutionary biology of racism and white supremacy.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases