Assaults on science have led scientists to demand “politics-free/values-free” science that safeguards science against error by grounding it in “politically neutral” evidence. Considering racial disparities in lead poisoning, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19, we show the solution is doomed. Politically charged beliefs are essential for assessing public-health research; thus, the beliefs’ truth affects the research's accuracy. However, science's sociopolitical uses systematically distort politically charged beliefs. Since errors assimilate into our scientific corpus and inform new hypotheses, scientists need accurate sociopolitical theories of distorting forces to identify errors. Analyzing Black-Panther opposition to violence research, we argue since racial disparities structure society and science has been distorted to buttress racial inequities, knowledgeable anti-racist scientists exert corrective forces on research. They hold accurate politically charged beliefs about sociopolitical forces shaping science and health, and are committed to eradicating distortions. Thus, rather than quarantining politically charged beliefs, scientists should sharpen their sociopolitical theories and normative commitments.
NestleM. Food industry funding of nutrition research the relevance of history for current debates. JAMA Intern Med2016; 176: 1685–1686.
13.
RudderC. Let’s march to stress the value of science for the public good, not to engage in partisan politics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2017; 114: 3784–3786.
JensenAR. Race and the genetics of intelligence: a reply to Lewontin. Bull At Sci1970; 26: 17–23.
22.
WarrenC. The screaming epidemic. In: Brush with death: a social history of lead poisoning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001, pp. 178–202.
23.
ChatterjeePGettmanJH. Lead poisoning: subculture as a facilitating agent?Am J Clin Nutr1972; 25: 324–330.
24.
HunterJM. Geophagy in Africa and in the United States: a culture-nutrition hypothesis. Geogr Rev1973; 63: 170–195.
25.
PueschelSMCullenSMHowardRB, et al.Pathogenic considerations of pica in lead poisoning. Int J Psychiatry Med1977; 8: 13–24.
26.
EidsvoldGMustalishANovickLF. Lessons in a lead poisoning control program. Am J Public Health1974; 64: 956–962.
27.
StringsS. Obese Black women as ‘social dead weight’: reinventing the ‘diseased Black woman’. Signs J Women Cult Soc2015; 41: 107–130.
28.
KriegerN. Contemporary mainstream epidemiologic theory: biomedical and lifestyle. In: Epidemiology and the people’s health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 126–162.
29.
MarkowitzGRosnerD. From personal tragedy to public health crisis. In: Lead wars: the politics of science and the fate of America’s children. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013, pp. 50–74.
30.
MarkowitzGRosnerD. “Cater to the children”: the role of the lead industry in a public health tragedy, 1900-1955. Am J Public Health2000; 90: 36–46.
31.
HardingS. Comment on Walby’s ‘against epistemological chasms: the science question in feminism revisited’: can democratic values and interests ever play a rationally justifiable role in the evaluation of scientific work?Signs2001; 26: 511–525.
32.
SchwartzSPrinsSJCampbellUB, et al.Is the “well-defined intervention assumption” politically conservative?Soc Sci Med2016; 166: 254–257.
33.
Morello-FroschRLopezR. The riskscape and the color line: examining the role of segregation in environmental health disparities. Environ Res2006; 102: 181–196.
34.
KriegerN. Social epidemiologic alternatives: sociopolitical and psychosocial frameworks. In: Epidemiology and the people’s health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 163–201.
35.
SampsonRJWinterAS. The racial ecology of lead poisoning: toxic inequality in Chicago neighborhoods, 1995-2013. Du Bois Rev2016; 13: 261–283.
36.
MarkowitzGRosnerD. Introduction: a legacy of neglect. In: Lead wars: the politics of science and the fate of America’s children. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013, pp. 23–49.
37.
WarrenC. Facing the consequences of leaded gasoline. In: Brush with death: a social history of lead poisoning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001, pp. 203–223.
38.
TaylorK-Y. Race for profit: how banks and the real estate industry undermined Black homeownership. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2019.
39.
RothsteinR. The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York: Liveright, 2017.
40.
O'ConnorA. Poverty knowledge: social science, social policy, and the poor in twentieth-century U.S. history. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
41.
DoudsKWO’ConnellHABratterJL. The racial boundaries of inequality: how racial hierarchies and white identity shape whites’ explanations for racial inequality. Du Bois Rev Soc Sci Res Race2019; 16: 83–106.
42.
SovranS. Understanding culture and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. J Soc Asp HIV/AIDS2013; 10: 32–41.
43.
RodneyW. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications, 1972.
44.
SawersLStillwaggonE. Understanding the Southern African ‘anomaly’: poverty, endemic disease, and HIV. Dev Chang2010; 41: 195–224.
45.
ChowkwanyunMReedAL. Racial health disparities and COVID-19 – caution and context. N Engl J Med2020; 383: 201–203.
46.
RobinsonC. Black Marxism: the making of the Black radical tradition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983.
47.
VirdeeS. Racialized capitalism: an account of its contested origins and consolidation. Sociol Rev2019; 67: 3–27.
48.
Pirtle WNL. Racial capitalism: a fundamental cause of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic inequities in the United States. Heal Educ Behav2020; 47: 504–508.
49.
KriegerN. If “race” is the answer, what is the question?—on “race,” racism, and health: a social epidemiologist’s perspective. Social Science Research Council, 2006, http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Krieger/(accessed 1 November 2021).
50.
HardingS. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.
51.
BoydR. The current status of scientific realism. In: LeplinJ (ed) Scientific realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, pp. 41–82.
52.
HardingS. Introduction. In: HardingS (ed) Can theories be refuted?: essays on the Duhem-quine thesis. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co, 1976, pp. IX–XXI.
53.
QuineWV. Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964.
54.
MarxK. Introduction. In: Grundrisse. London: Penguin Classics, 1993, pp. 104–106.
55.
MarxK. The chapter on capital. In: Grundrisse. London: Penguin Classics, 1993, pp. 409–410.
56.
MarcuseH. The triumph of positive thinking: one-dimensional philosophy. In: One dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, pp. 170–199.
KriegerN. Stormy weather: race, gene expression, and the science of health disparities. Am J Public Health2005; 95: 2155–2160.
66.
MichaelsDMonfortonC. Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public’s health and environment. Am J Public Health2005; 95: S39–S48.
67.
EgilmanDFehnelCBohmeSR. Exposing the ‘Myth’ of ABC, ‘anything but Chrysotile’: a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies. Am J Ind Med2003; 44: 540–557.
68.
EpelmanM. The export of hazards to the third world: the case of asbestos in Latin America. New Solut A J Environ Occup Heal Policy1993; 2: 48–56.
69.
BroadbentAVandenbrouckeJPPearceN. Response: formalism or pluralism? A reply to commentaries on ‘causality and causal inference in epidemiology’. Int J Epidemiol2016; 45: 1841–1851.
70.
SismondoS. How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med2008; 66: 1909–1914.
MitchellMLeachmanMMastersonK. Funding down, tuition up: state cuts to higher education threaten quality and affordability at public colleges. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2016, https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up(accessed 1 November 2021).
73.
LilienfeldSO. Psychology’s replication crisis and the grant culture: righting the ship. Perspect Psychol Sci2017; 12: 660–664.
74.
FanelliD. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One2010; 5: e10271.
LevensteinCSiqueiraCESlatinC. From neoliberalism to neofascism. New Solut A J Environ Occup Heal Policy2017; 27: 148–153.
77.
CollinsPH. Comment on Hekman's “truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”: where’s the power?Signs1997; 22: 375–381.
78.
HartsockNCM. Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”: truth or justice?Signs1997; 22: 367–374.
79.
GoldenbergMJ. Diversity in epistemic communities: a response to Clough. Soc Epistemol Rev Reply Collect2014; 3: 25–30.
80.
CloughS. Feminist theories of evidence and biomedical research communities: a reply to Goldenberg. Soc Epistemol Rev Reply Collect2013; 2: 72–76.
81.
WylieASismondoS. Standpoint theory, in science. In: LynchME (ed) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015, pp. 324–330.
Nunez-SmithMCiarleglioMMSandoval-SchaeferT, et al. Institutional variation in the promotion of racial/ethnic minority faculty at US medical schools. Am J Public Health2012; 102: 852–858.
85.
SchistermanEFSwansonCWLuYL, et al. The changing face of epidemiology: gender disparities in citations?Epidemiology2017; 28: 159–168.
NelsonA. As American as cherry pie: contesting the biologization of violence. In: Body and soul: the Black panther party and the fight against medical discrimination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013, pp. 153–180.
88.
JensenAR. Genetics and education. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
89.
MarkVErvinF. Violence and the brain. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
90.
NelsonA. The longue durée of black lives matter. Am J Public Health2016; 106: 1734–1737.
91.
LewontinRC. The apportionment of human diversity. In: DobzhanskyTHechtMKSteereWC (eds) Evolutionary biology. New York: Springer, 1972, pp. 381–398.
92.
LevinsRLewontinRC. The problem of Lysenkoism. In: The dialectical biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985, pp. 163–196.
93.
MillsCW. White ignorance. In: ProctorRSchiebingerL (eds) Agnotology: the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008, pp. 230–249.
94.
CloughS. Feminist epistemology and evolutionary theory. In: Beyond epistemology: a pragmatist approach to feminist science studies. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp. 47–66.
95.
AndersonE. The use of value judgements in science: a general argument, with lessons from a case study on divorce. Hypatia2004; 19: 1–24.
96.
GoldenbergMJ. On evidence and evidence-based medicine: lessons from the philosophy of science. Soc Sci Med2006; 62: 2621–2632.
97.
CloughS. Pragmatism and embodiment as resources for feminist interventions in science. Contemp Pragmatism2013; 10: 121–134.
98.
FrickerM. Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
99.
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice. Jemez principles for democratic organizing, 1996. Jemez, New Mexico: Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/resource/9190439/(accessed 1 November 2021).
