The persistent use of animalistic language to describe marginalized groups isn’t a rhetorical slip – it’s a deeply rooted pattern echoing centuries-old, and demonstrably flawed, scientific thinking. In my very first biology class here at Case Western Reserve University, we covered a brief history of evolutionary science, encountering Aristotle’s “scala naturae,” or “Great Chain of Being,” a hierarchical ranking placing humans above animals, and within humanity, establishing further divisions. While now understood as a pre-scientific attempt at categorization, this framework continues to subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, inform societal biases. The current moment demands we recognize how these historical pseudo-scientific structures aren’t relics of the past, but actively shape political discourse and justify discriminatory practices.
The “Great Chain of Being” wasn’t simply a neutral ordering of life; it was inherently evaluative. Aristotle positioned men above women, and crucially, ranked women closer to the animal kingdom – a clear act of dehumanization. This isn’t merely historical curiosity. The echoes of this thinking are readily apparent in contemporary rhetoric. Consider the frequent use of the term “aliens” by the current administration to describe undocumented individuals living in the United States. This isn’t simply a matter of imprecise language; it’s a deliberate act of “othering,” stripping individuals of their humanity by associating them with something perceived as fundamentally different, and therefore, less worthy of consideration. The choice of language isn’t accidental; it draws upon a long tradition of framing marginalized groups as existing outside the human sphere.
Drawn from observer.case.edu.
This pattern extends beyond immigration policy. The invocation of scientific arguments – often selectively chosen or misinterpreted – is a hallmark of contemporary political debate. From discussions surrounding abortion and reproductive healthcare to the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) dietary guidelines, science is frequently presented as objective justification for pre-existing ideological positions. While accusations of misuse fly from all sides, the underlying issue is that science itself isn’t immune to bias. It’s a product of its time, shaped by the perspectives and priorities of those conducting the research. To assume science delivers purely objective truth is to ignore its historical context and the potential for ingrained societal prejudices to influence its trajectory.
The history of science is, unfortunately, replete with examples of this bias in action. The horrific experiments conducted by James Marion Sims in the mid-1800s, widely considered the foundation of modern gynecology, serve as a stark reminder. Sims performed over 30 surgeries on enslaved Black women, including Anarcha, without anesthesia, operating under the racist belief that Black people didn’t experience pain in the same way as white people. This wasn’t simply unethical medical practice; it was a demonstration of how scientific inquiry can be – and historically has been – used to justify and perpetuate systemic oppression. The narrative of scientific progress often glosses over these brutal realities, but acknowledging them is crucial to understanding the potential for harm inherent in unchecked scientific authority.
However, the misuse of science isn’t always rooted in historical atrocities. It can also manifest in more subtle, yet equally damaging, ways. A recent example involves the argument that women are “passive” due to the perceived passivity of the egg during fertilization. This claim, based on an outdated and inaccurate understanding of reproductive biology, was used to justify misogynistic views about female roles in relationships. The argument fundamentally misunderstands the principles of evolution – which emphasizes randomness, not predetermined design – and ignores recent research demonstrating the egg’s active role in fertilization, including the release of chemical signals to attract and select sperm. This illustrates how individuals can selectively employ scientific concepts, divorced from their broader context, to reinforce pre-existing biases.
As students at Case Western Reserve University, many of us are actively contributing to the scientific enterprise. We are immersed in advanced coursework, conducting research, and preparing for careers in STEM fields. But this engagement carries a responsibility. We must critically examine the historical and social forces that shape scientific inquiry, recognizing that science is not a neutral pursuit. It is inherently political, and only by acknowledging this can we strive to create a more equitable and just future. The question now isn’t simply what scientific discoveries we make, but how we ensure those discoveries are used responsibly and don’t inadvertently perpetuate the harmful biases of the past. Specifically, we should be watching for the increasing trend of “biological essentialism” – the idea that social behaviors are directly determined by biology – in political and social debates, and be prepared to challenge those arguments with rigorous scientific understanding.
