Science and Bias (Kali Jerrard, October 22, 2024, MAS)
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has published the fourth and final report in the Shifting Sands project, Unsound Science and Unsafe Regulation, Zombie Psychology, Implicit Association Test. Through statistical analyses, this report finds that the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a test which is used as a metric in the implicit bias theory—and utilized by scientists, government, researchers, and others—has no scientific foundation.For years, NAS has warned of the dangers of the irreproducibility crisis and its bearing on the spread of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) and other race-based ideologies throughout higher education, science, and even government. Each of the four reports in the Shifting Sands project address the effects of the irreproducibility crisis on public policy, specifically “how flawed science has underwritten costly policies that undermine liberty.” But what exactly is the “irreproducibility crisis”? For those unfamiliar, irreproducible science occurs when an original study cannot be reproduced with the same results. The irreproducibility crisis occurs when regulations and public policy are swayed or influenced by science and studies which cannot be reproduced with statistically significant results.
Logically, government policies should be guided by sound science, especially when dealing with sensitive subjects like race, sex, and gender. But logic has taken a proverbial hike.
For all four Shifting Sands reports, the authors utilized p-value plotting to demonstrate the weaknesses in government use of meta-analyses. Policymakers and scientists alike use statistical analyses as a means to an end—achieving statistically significant results are useful when arguing for changes to policy and regulation. Oftentimes, these analyses are skewed. False-positive, statistically significant results abound. Why are these results so common? Why is unsound science pervading policy, especially antidiscrimination law? And why should we care?