Do scientist's looks, religion, politics, or personality affect how his or her data are regarded?

Question

also, can the science that scientists produce be separated from the other aspects of their lives? Can we monitor discriminatory behavior without restricting academic freedom?

Answer 1

Scientists are human beings. And like any other human being, they are prone to prejudice at times. One of the sneakiest things about prejudice is that often you are not even aware that you have one.

Nor would science necessarily be better if all pre-judgement were cast aside. No paper or lecture, no matter how thorough, can possibily cover every possible aspect of even one research project. Yet such intimate knowledge might come in handy in judging the results. Some people ask questions and use the same instruments and come up with slightly different results. Errors can creep in everywhere, and often there is no way to sniff them out without doing an identical study yourself.

So instead we have to weigh what we know against what we don't know. If we know that the patrons of a study would have favoured one outcome over another, we have reason to be suspcious. And perhaps likewise if we know that one region, school, or researcher has a tendancy to produce bad results. None of this is actual evidence of wrongdoing, of course. But perhaps it's not unjustified to up the ante of skepticism, as it were.

That said, I find that scientists tend to be generally less prejudicial that many others. While there are things that rank will get you, it is also possible to get noticed without it. And a typical graph in one article in a scientific journal often takes more room than the space allocated to describe the authors of the article. So I think we're doing pretty well, actually.

Answer 2

We have all seen how the Bush administration has fought to twist and circumvent science in the name of their personal opinions...so obviously, politics can be important! But of all the things on your list I think religion is the most problematic. It shouldn't matter, but I personally find it hard to trust the reasoning ability of hard-core religious people that claim to be scientists. The two thought processes are completely antithetical to each other! Embracing supernatural events as described in ancient mythology as "fact" hardly qualifies one as a critical thinker! (or even more modern mythology...e.g., Mormons, Scientologists, etc.....)

Answer 3

I think reputation is paramount in the scientific establishment.

Most of them are not great to look at and probably aren't very religious or political. They are men of facts and ideas.