Science has advanced for centuries thanks to the most talented, curious, and goal-oriented people. But now — by new requirements in the US — it must be developed per the DEI ideology (diversity, equity, inclusion) to include the efforts of the least represented social groups. Scientific grant applications must include ideological sections that show how a particular scientific group will follow the principles of DEI, and the budgets of scientific projects must now include money for DEI consultants. The authors of the resonant article “Politicization of science funding undermines public trust in science, academic freedom and impartial formation of knowledge” believe that this is ineffective and illegal. What will happen to science if DEI principles are strictly observed in the academic environment? T-invariant discussed this with one of the article’s authors, Igor Efimov, a professor of bioengineering at Northwestern University in Chicago, on the stream “It’s complicated.”
Info
Igor Efimov was born in Zheleznogorsk, Krasnoyarsk Krai. He graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology in 1986. After graduating from MIPT, he worked at the Institute of Biophysics of the USSR Academy of Sciences and defended his PhD thesis on cardiac biophysics at MIPT. In 1992, he moved to the United States with his family.
He began his career in America at the University of Pittsburgh. He then worked at the Cleveland Clinic, as well as at the universities of Cleveland, St. Louis, and Washington (District of Columbia). Professor Efimov is a member of the National Academy of Inventors and the American Institute of Medicine, and an honorary member of several scientific associations. He is also the editor-in-chief of the journal Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology.
Dr. Efimov has founded several companies, including Cardialen (2008) to develop low-energy implantable electrotherapy for the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and NuSera Biosystems (2020) to develop soft wearable and implantable electronic devices. Igor Efimov is currently a professor of biomedical engineering and medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.
T-invariant: It is not often that eight American professors from different fields (mathematics, biomedicine, biology, legal sciences) decide to write an article together about how ideology influences science. What made you do it?
Igor Efimov: On the one hand, we face a very complex problem that requires a wide variety of approaches. That is why, among the authors of our article, there are people who are professional experienced lawyers. On the other hand, such a diversity of expertise is necessary because what is happening now in the US universities affects everyone in academic science. I have lived in the US for 32 years, of which almost 25 years I have been a professor. During all these years, I have constantly participated in discussions about various principles of academic freedom. How to review grants and evaluate scientific results – these kinds of discourses always occur at the faculty and university levels. But they rarely spill into the public arena and usually remain behind closed doors. However, today, the problem of how and by whom scientific knowledge is produced and by what principle scientists are selected for leadership positions has entered the political plane. And this has prompted us to go beyond the boundaries of our immediate professional interests and our scientific fields.
T-i: However, it is difficult to imagine that you and your co-authors are against inclusiveness, diversity, and equality. These principles themselves are certainly fundamental in modern society. What is the matter?
IE: Undoubtedly, principles of diversity and equality are extremely important for all of us. In fact, everything in science is based on the principle of equality. Naturally, all my life, I have been proud that my laboratory and department (and I was the department’s chairman for five years) included men and women from different ethnic groups. Moreover, 70% of our students were women when I was a chairman, and I was very proud. I always considered it very important for me to help young women get positions in science and be successful. However, this was when the principles of DEI had not yet reached the political level and had not replaced meritocracy: promotion of the best, which is decisive for the development of science. As in sports, by the way.
The Olympics have just ended. Imagine that teams from some countries were formed not on the principle of the best results but on the principle of representation of oppressed groups. What kind of teams would they be? And how would they perform against the background of those countries that selected athletes based on their achievements, not skin color or sexual orientation?
Why is it so essential to defend the principle of meritocracy in science? Because the future of any advanced state in terms of technology and economy depends on knowledge production. The best knowledge and the most advanced theories are achieved only by the best of the best. And if this rule of selection of personnel in science is replaced by any other (class, gender, race, whatever), science will stop developing. For example, in the USSR, in the 1920s, emphasis was placed on “proletarian education” and proletarian representation among students. This led to a significant decline in science in the early 1930s. And then, it took a long time to correct the consequences of the “class-based” approach.
T-i: Indeed, the DEI ideology basically dates back to the early 20th century, when socialist ideas were spread, and then it was applied at the state level in the USSR. However, the modern concept of DEI in American universities has been spreading for over two decades. When did the situation change so dramatically? In connection with Biden’s executive orders in 2021, which directly linked the DEI ideology and money?
IE: Partly this, yes. And partly the realization that we have come to a moment when democracy needs to be protected. Let me remind you that Dr. Benjamin Franklin was asked: “Doctor, do we have a republic or a monarchy?” He answered: “We have a republic if you can keep it.” And in general, this happens in every generation. Now, such a moment has come for us. But it also has a monetary value.
T-i: Your article pays special attention to money. How much do DEI principles cost American science? Is part of the money now required to be spent on following these principles in the budgets allocated by the National Health Fund, the Department of Defense, and the National Institutes of Health?
IE: That’s right. A direct amount goes to DEI consultants. An entire consulting industry has already emerged on this issue. For example, in an application for a grant in molecular biology or high-energy physics, a scientist must write separate sections on these ideological slogans. And you have to hire specific individuals to respond to the system’s request and pay them significant amounts of money for this. Their salary reaches, in some cases, about 200-300 thousand dollars a year, which exceeds the annual salary of professors. And funding depends directly on how this part is written, while the scientific part is a less critical criterion. The first threshold that must be overcome in the application, you must describe how you will look for a racist in yourself and then eradicate it from yourself. However, this is only one aspect of the financial issue in the DEI field. The main damage is not how many dollars were spent on these consultants. The worst damage is different. Imagine what would have happened if Roentgen had not discovered radiation. How would this have affected medicine and humanity in general? And there are many such examples. Imagine how much humanity would lose if not the best applications are selected, which offer an advanced, new cancer treatment method, but those where the correct political statements are written. Therefore, the worst thing is not the amount of payments to dubious consultants but the loss of knowledge due to distorted criteria for selecting scientific projects.
T-i: Your article describes the legal component of the DEI topic well, revealing the contradiction between modern US legislation and the requirements for mandatory adherence to ideology put forward by government scientific agencies. How do you explain why NASA, the US National Institutes of Health, and other agencies do not resist these principles? After all, they allocate money, which means they should receive an excellent scientific result for this money. Why should they participate in this ideological game of offsets?
IE: This is also one of the essential phenomena that motivated us to speak out publicly. In the article, we provided a list of the leading agencies and their mission statements, which is what they should do.
Politicizing science funding undermines public trust in science, academic freedom, and the unbiased generation of knowledge
According to the laws when they were founded, the National Institutes of Health must deal with health. The Department of Energy must deal with the country’s security in the energy field. NASA should deal with space – this is their primary mission. Everything else is secondary. But they deviate from their primary mission when they start playing politics when they select not the best in their field. As a result, they lose in competition, which is a violation of their mission. Their mission is to protect American citizens’ health, energy, and space primacy.
T-i: So why are they doing this?
IE: I think the answer is trivial. Unfortunately, all these government agencies (who are also sponsors of science) are run by political appointees who often change when the White House administration changes. Most likely, this is a question of the political situation of specific people.
T-i: Then, who is the beneficiary of this new policy? Who is behind it, and who introduced it?
IE: This movement arose among the far left.
At some point, they felt that with the help of this ideology, they could get a bigger political piece. They created a massive bureaucracy of consultants who directly receive financial benefits from this. In the end, this led to very strong opposition from the academic community. Unfortunately, it is not always public because, for many, it can be the end of a career.
T-i: Are there any specific examples when efficiency has dropped somewhere because of such a policy? For example, the laboratory leader left because he did not want to play by these false rules.
IE: I am a member of the Academic Freedom Alliance. It defends professors who are persecuted by administrations due to ideological opposition. There have been several cases when professors were fired from their jobs for undesirable statements, and this alliance (it includes many lawyers prominent in the field of academic freedom) defended the professors and achieved success. In principle, this is not a completely toothless movement – it can also defend its participants in the legal field.
T-i: How local do you think the history of your public protest is? How purely American is it? Let’s say some scientist in Kazakhstan or Russia is sitting here thinking: “Thank God, these are not our problems.” Is there any reason to believe that DEI principles in science will take over the entire world, and this will become a common problem for all scientists?
IE: Unfortunately, it has already become international. I was just invited to review applications for a Canadian foundation, and the first thing they sent me was their questionnaire to fill out. I replied that I did not want to answer how and with whom I have sex and what my preferences are in this matter. If you want my scientific expertise in evaluating applications, I will gladly do it. But I am not going to let you in on my personal life.
The same thing is happening in Europe. I recently participated in a conference in England, and from conversations with colleagues from England, France, and Spain, I realized that this is happening everywhere. And this worries most scientists. It is clear that some mechanisms are needed to ensure that different groups are represented in science, but still, in my opinion, the priority should be on the side of meritocracy: the best of the best should be selected on the principle of color blindness. That is, we should select the best without paying attention to what identity a person belongs to.
Igor Efimov. Photo: https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu
T-i: Recently, there has been news that tech giants like Microsoft and Google are cutting or closing their DEI departments. They explain this by using business and financial indicators, emphasizing that the policy in this area is staying the same. That is, companies already have grounds to say that these departments do not affect economic efficiency or HR policy. Do you have a feeling that the pendulum will swing back?
IE: Yes, I also noticed that Microsoft closed the DEI department. Why? Firstly, they did not see that the existence of this department somehow improved diversity. Secondly, Microsoft has been hiring the most talented people from different ethnic groups for many decades. They continue to do so and will continue to do so in the future.
From this point of view, the industry’s role in resisting ideological pressure is very important. I will give another example: you can learn from it. Many companies introduced a system of annual reports many years ago when you write a very detailed, 30-page report to your boss. Then, the same system was introduced in the academy. It took several days – a massive blow to your time. But it started in the industry. So – in the industry, many companies no longer do this. Because the immediate manager, who has six to ten people under him, already knows perfectly well who does what. And business began to abandon this. But universities and institutes – not yet. The academy belatedly takes up this baton from the industry, but I hope it will also eliminate this meaningless ritual. And I am sure that the same will happen with DEI.
T-i: In our experience, when discussing the DEI issue with scientists working in Europe and America, we have yet to meet a single specialist who would support the principles of DEI as applied to academic recruiting and academic projects. In private conversations, scientists react to these demands with great irritation. But in public, almost no one dares to justify this irritation. But you and your colleagues dared to do so. Is this because all the authors do not feel any fear for their academic careers?
IE: Well, in a sense, yes. After all, I am already a full professor, and it is much more challenging to fire me than a person at an earlier career stage. The other authors of our article are already well-known people in their fields, also full professors, and, of course, we are protected by our positions. That is why we feel obliged to say out loud what an assistant professor with two small children and a tenure decision in couple years would not dare to say.
T-i: I recall the story of one scientist (we will not name the field) from a leading American university who was responsible for the personnel policy of his department. In a private conversation, he explained to us why he left his post, something like this: “When it came to women, it was not difficult for me to fulfill this quota. I followed strong reports at conferences and publications, and I knew that I would bring such a woman to us that no one would question what she was doing there. I chose worthy ones, and I succeeded. The situation with the quotas for African Americans was not the easiest either. However, I broke down on sexual minorities when the administration began to demand that they be represented in the required number. I realized that I did not understand how to fulfill this requirement, and I did not want to find out who is a closet gay, who is openly gay, etc. I simply quit.” When asked why explaining to the administration the viciousness of such personnel selection was impossible, he chuckled: “It is the same as debating with those who claim that Marx’s teaching is omnipotent because it is true.” Hence, the question to you and your co-authors: how will you and your colleagues continue to defend your position? How will you debate in the public arena with those for whom “Marx’s teaching is all-powerful because it is true”?
IE: Unfortunately, we will have to choose a long-term approach. To really provide access to all scientific fields for all social groups, we need to change educational approaches at the school, bachelor’s level, and so on. This is a long and challenging job. This will be the real solution to the problem of accessibility and equal opportunities in science. Politicizing this problem and solving it at the legislative level through quotas will only lead to the fact that people who are appointed to their posts in this way will be stigmatized for life. And this will only increasingly push the professional community away from the principles proclaimed by the DEI ideology. I will repeat once again – I adhere to the principles of equality. However, their implementation should organically grow in science by selecting the best of the best. That is, it is necessary to explain in the public arena that this delicate and important issue requires a long-term approach rather than a short-term and ideological one, as is currently being implemented.
T-i: Make a prediction: if you lose, and the DEI principles still win and ultimately capture the academic system (since it is global and lives in one information and management field), what will happen to science?
IE: The answer can be found in the history of science. Over the past millennium, no country has been ahead of the rest of the world for more than a century or a century and a half at most. There were periods when the Dutch dominated, then the Italians, the French, the Germans, the British, and now the Americans. However, there is still a constant change of leadership. And if you look at how and when this change occurred, it happened when brains flowed from one place to another. Talented scientists are always looking for where they can realize their potential best. Therefore, if the principles of DEI are fully established in universities in America and Europe, talent will start leaving elsewhere. Where to? I don’t know if it will be China or some other country. However, sooner or later, someone will take advantage of this and create conditions for meritocracy, selecting only based on the principles of science talent and not paying attention to all other issues as selection criteria.
T-i: In your article, there is an important quote from African-American professor Williams: “My father, who fought racism, will never forgive me if I check the box on the fact of my race to win some grant.” And then he writes: “No matter what happens, I will never forgive the National Institutes of Health for bringing racism back into medical research.” And he promises that he will never fill out grant applications and check the box that he is African-American.
IE: This is a great example of a person who achieved what he achieved solely by his abilities. Moreover, it was most likely more difficult for him to accomplish this than for others because, unfortunately, racism has been present for all these decades. However, he believes that taking advantage of this now is illegal.
T-i: Are there many such people? And do you feel the support of your colleagues?
IE: It is difficult to say because in America, even behind closed doors, it is not customary to talk about politics in the workplace. Even with my officemates at the university, I rarely talk about Democrats, Republicans, or anything like that. However, when the article came out, I received several letters from colleagues saying they were proud to work with me at the same university and fully supported my viewpoint. But this was not done publicly. And I am not sure they are ready to make their support public.
Text: T-invariant Editorial Board
Editors 13.08.2024