Abstract:
Scientific research often promises a better life, and increasingly, is being used to understand social problems such as poverty and inequality. Researchers who address questions with social and political significance may find themselves in fraught positions where they must defend their ethics and morality, disciplinary training, and status as objective investigators. In this talk, I show how a subfield of researchers who have strong moral and social obligations to improving the lives of vulnerable children through scientific research become the center of controversy, drawing criticism from both progressives and conservatives alike. These neuroscientists and developmental psychologists study the impact of poverty and adversity on the developing brain and suggest that children’s cognitive abilities and mental health are affected by experiences in early childhood; they argue that their studies are powerful evidence that add to the literature on the social determinants of health. Despite these good intentions, scientists face criticism from progressives that their research is racist and eugenicist, and from conservatives that they are hijacking objective science to further their political ends. I detail the different ways that scientists respond to these claims using conceptions of hope, plasticity, and anti-determinism. Their experiences suggest that scientists doing research with great social and political significance are likely to face controversy where their objectivity and morality are questioned. I argue we should not back away from contentious topics, but instead engage with expert communities and lay publics to negotiate the kinds of political science and social justice we conduct in the university.