The Scientific Method Is Western Biased?

Author¹: Isha Harris(Co-President)

This week we had a lecture titled Decolonising Global Health. The premise was that modern medicine is a colonial artefact, as is science as a whole. Western philosophers pioneered ideas of objectivism and empiricism, and in doing so marginalised traditional and indigenous forms of knowledge. The lecturer explained how coloniality of knowledge is wielded by the descendents of colonisers, and we are facing an epistemicide as indigenous and alternative forms of knowledge are discredited. The lecturer described medicine as the most cruel outcome of the colonisation of knowledge, and expressed regret that medical knowledge is centred around empiricism and positivism. She then posited some solutions for medical schools, including: 

• Consider indigenous and traditional healing practices as equal or superior to western medicine
• Question the use of hospitals, suggesting we don’t need to practise medicine in these colonial settings
• Accept degrees in traditional medicine as valid accreditation to practise medicine in all parts of the world
• Use dreams as a diagnostic tool

I will preface by saying that I absolutely think science has a murky, colonial past, and lot to answer for throughout history. Exploitation and unethical experimentation have been all too common, and it’s quite unsurprising that science has lost the trust of many minority groups. Some particular examples include Henrietta Lacks, the namesake of HeLa cells, James Marion Sims’ gynaecology experiments on enslaved black women, and Nazi experiments during the holocaust. Science is not perfect, and we are right to continue questioning its practice to this day. At least, science as an institution. 

But science as a method is independent of the shortcomings of the past. Science is simply the process of testing your ideas by observing the world, and updating them when the evidence conflicts. We are all scientists when we look at the window and decide whether to bring an umbrella; when we smell milk to check if it’s gone off. 

Scientific thinking has existed, in all parts of the world, for millennia. If a cavemen was told that this patch of berries is safe to eat, they’d sure as hell want you to give you some evidence before eating them. If I claim that your spouse is cheating on you, you’re going to ask me to prove it, whether you live in the West or East, now or in 3000 BC. It just so happened that it was the Western Enlightenment philosophers who formalised it using big words like hypothesis.

In my view, to claim that the scientific method is western biased is intensely patronising, and actually quite racist. It is to say that non-Westerners simply cannot comprehend the concept of testing your ideas with evidence, that they were left behind after the enlightenment, stuck in the dark ages of folklore and conspiracy. And this is absolutely not true! The developing world does some incredible science, and is really leading the way in certain fields such as palaeontology, infectious disease, and epidemiology. Africa for example boasts some pretty impressive institutions, such as the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust, and the Evolutionary Studies Institute. I wonder what the great scientists working in these faculties would make of my lecturer’s great claim? 

More broadly, the concept of ‘alternative forms of knowledge’ as a whole just seems vastly unserious. Epistemological relativism, where knowledge is seen as context dependent and equally valid regardless of empirical support, is ridiculous at best, and dangerous at worst. It threatens the great progress that the developing world is seeing, thanks to improved technology, agriculture and healthcare. It risks romanticising cruel practices, such as female genital mutilation, simply by virtue of them being indigenous. And to teach Cambridge medical students that these forms of knowledge are equivalent to evidence based practice is dangerous. If the students took this lecture seriously, we wouldn’t question a patient when they opted for herbal remedies over chemotherapy. Because all forms of knowledge are equivalent, right? Surely the cancer cells understand that!

All knowledge should be critically assessed, and subject to strict empirical standards. As it stands, science has the most demonstrable impact on wellbeing, so it is the knowledge-form we opt for. Of course, if I am presented with some new evidence showing that an alternative way of knowing in fact leads to a more effective discovery of the truth, then I will gladly reconsider my position, like any good scientist. But until that day, let us spread the wonders of modern science far and wide, uplift the developing world to enjoy its rich rewards, and support their great efforts in practising it themselves. 

1. This article was originally posted on Co-President’s personal blog and adapted for publication here for CUSAP. ↩︎