New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Science for Good

Thousands marched in London in 2016, protesting police brutality against Black people in America.

Thousands marched in London in 2016, protesting police brutality against Black people in America.

Janine Wiedel/Alamy Stock Photo

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

At least 16 U.S. states have passed bills banning critical race theory from school curriculums, in some cases prohibiting the teaching of terms such as “racial prejudice,” “patriarchy” and “structural inequality.” These restrictions use critical race theory as a scare tactic, even though the actual research examines only how race and law interact, not all concepts of race and society. At the least, these bills misrepresent actual findings. At worst, they are a disinformation campaign.

These kinds of political tactics undermine some of the basic goals of education, such as critical reasoning and the study of history and science. Important political and policy decisions about education, health care, the planet and democracy hang in the balance, and they should all be informed by evidence. Robust research is underway on every problem that plagues us, from racism and white supremacy to lack of health care and environmental injustice. Scholarship has revealed powerful tools for undoing foundational inequalities in our society, and we should use those tools.

Implicit bias feeds harmful stereotypes and has many real-world effects, such as preventing Black people from receiving quality health care, education or housing. Prejudices are built into everyday data algorithms used by policy makers and health providers to determine care and even legal proceedings. Some may believe they are free of prejudice but enact “microaggressions” on marginalized members of society, causing psychological harm and furthering discrimination.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Inequality undermines the health of a large proportion of the population. The chronic stress of poverty creates cycles of sickness, inciting lifelong health struggles disproportionately borne by people of color and low-income groups. A novel coronavirus took an unequal toll on those groups. And new treatments and medicines are primarily tailored toward white (usually male) patients as the result of biased testing protocols.

Those without power or money are more likely to feel the consequences of a polluted and depleted planet. The latest studies conclusively show that Black, Asian and Hispanic people in the U.S. breathe in significantly more deadly particulate matter from emissions than white people. Because their citizens do not have access to COVID vaccines, some nations’ representatives have even been unable to participate in important international meetings on the environment and climate.

Empowering each member of society pays dividends. Diversity in workplaces encourages the search for fresh perspectives and leads to better decision-making and problem-solving. Resilience and innovation can be found in long-dismissed marginalized communities as well. Protests and campaigns by Black Lives Matter in the past two years have altered our discourse around these topics, continuing the work of the Civil Rights Movement. But we’re at risk of letting a global pandemic and growing populism stymie advances toward equality if we turn our backs on hard-won progress.

As sociologist Aldon Morris wrote in Scientific American in 2020, activists on the streets have won valuable symbolic changes—renaming buildings, streets and monuments and rallying public awareness. The work must now undo the oppressive forces built into the very makeup of our society. Never before has science had a more vital mission.

Andrea Gawrylewski is chief newsletter editor at Scientific American. She writes the daily Today in Science newsletter and oversees all other newsletters at the magazine. In addition, she manages all special editions and in the past was the editor for Scientific American Mind, Scientific American Space & Physics and Scientific American Health & Medicine. Gawrylewski got her start in journalism at the Scientist magazine, where she was a features writer and editor for "hot" research papers in the life sciences. She spent more than six years in educational publishing, editing books for higher education in biology, environmental science and nutrition. She holds a master's degree in earth science and a master's degree in journalism, both from Columbia University, home of the Pulitzer Prize.

More by Andrea Gawrylewski
SA Special Editions Vol 31 Issue 3sThis article was published with the title “Science for Good” in SA Special Editions Vol. 31 No. 3s (), p. 1
doi:10.1038/scientificamericansocialjustice0622-1

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe