Misinterpretation of why black students do not pursue studies in the biological sciences

Abstract

Misinterpretation of why black students do not pursue studies in the biological sciencesWe contest the findings and methodology of the recently published commentary (Nattrass N., S Afr J Sci. 2020; 116(5/6), Art. #7864). We echo the many previous voices and calls for concern over the tenuous methodology and unsubstantiated 'conclusions' of this commentary. Below we provide specific details about each of the instances where this commentary is technically unsound. General premiseThe premise of the commentary is itself flawed. Biology students in other universities reflect the racial profile of the country. For instance, data from our own institution indicate that black student enrolment in the biological sciences has nearly doubled in the last decade (from ~640 students in 2010 to 1150 students in 2020), while other groups' enrolment has remained constant. Consequently, the assumption in the title: that black students are not choosing biological sciences is not valid.

In defence of exploratory research: A reply to critics

“…'There is a plausible risk that the commentary could be used to further bolster racist arguments, racial insensitivity, used in a manner to perpetuate harmful racist stereotypes' and undermine transformation. 23 I cannot address this anxiety, but I find it implausible that a dull, two-page commentary in the SAJS will have such wider repercussions. Some of my critics make bold statements that are simply wrong.…”

“…22 My 'deep-seated antipathy towards the Fallist movement … corrodes the scientific endeavour' 22 . Glennon et al 23 are more indirect: My conclusions 'could serve to promote ideological assumptions that are deeply rooted in a racialised and racist history.' Rosenberg and le Grange 24 write that I assume that there are 'innate differences between … race-based groupings.…”

“…Some of my critics seem to believe that there is no longer a problem of transformation in either the biological sciences or the conservation sector (and hence, by implication, my research was misguided and unnecessary). Glennon et al 23 that 'more needs to be done to achieve the transformation of the conservation sector as a whole, including within SANParks' and that progress to date has been 'rather modest'. 38 Many people from across the conservation sector have written to me making the same point: Despite progress, more needs to be done.…”

“…49,50 based on this data should not have been written or published? According to critics such as Glennon et al,23 the answer is a firm 'yes' because, they believe, one simply cannot run any probabilistic statistical analysis on a nonrandom sample. Perhaps this is because they are zoologists and botanists.…”

Narratives and Counternarratives on Data Sharing in Africa

“…Citing dialogues during a South African Soil Information Workshop, scholars identify the expansion of soil databases and data sharing as important developments for soil science and environmental fields [22,101]. The biomedical sciences also echo the call for data sharing [3,27,40,50,86]. In a recent paper, Martin et al [72] have called for global genomic data sharing and discussed the urgent need for more genetic data studies, while also arguing that African populations are not represented in global genomic databases.…”