Today Theral talks with Laura Hercher, Director of Research for Human Genetics at Sarah Lawrence College, about the growing political assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in scientific research.
I asked ChatGPT to help me with the language for expressing the difference between different aspects of diversity and this is what it came up with. It's just not that simple. First Chat GPT gave me this list:
Social Diversity: Gender, race, nationality, and representation issues in workplaces or social spaces.
Genetic Diversity: Variation in genetic makeup essential for personalized medicine and evolution.
Cultural Diversity: Diversity in traditions, values, and ways of life.
Ecological Diversity: Variation in ecosystems, species, and habitats for environmental balance.
Cognitive Diversity: Differences in thought processes, perspectives, and problem-solving approaches.
Economic Diversity: Variation in socioeconomic status and financial backgrounds.
I then pointed out the following, that may cross over other categories, but also have integrity in their own right. I am acutely aware of them as an older woman who is seriously under catered for in our society and so feeling severely discriminated against.
Sex Diversity: Designing for the physiological and anatomical differences between male and female bodies.
Age Diversity: Accounting for how needs, risks, and responses differ across life stages, from infants to older adults (e.g., drug metabolism, ergonomic design).
You just can't lump the whole lot under the single word, "diversity". But it still misses the point of what everyone is really objecting to with diversity, and that is promoting one person beyond their level of competence based on some diversity criteria.
So I pushed the conversation further and ChatGPT came up with the following:
The key distinction lies in diversity as value creation versus diversity as entitlement:
Value Creation: Diversity offers functional advantages when systems draw on multiple perspectives and skills (e.g., hiring someone who understands a specific market).
Entitlement or Tokenism: Diversity becomes problematic when used as a reason to prioritize individuals despite lacking the required competence, often at the cost of organizational or societal effectiveness.
And another way of putting it.
Diversity as a system value (subject): This involves incorporating varied perspectives (cultural, genetic, sex, etc.) to improve outcomes—whether in business, medicine, or research.
Example: "Genetic diversity allows precision medicine to thrive."
Diversity as an individual privilege (object): This involves leveraging diversity primarily as a basis for advancement or decision-making, sometimes without sufficient regard for competence.
Example: "Promoting someone based solely on gender, without competence, can undermine organizational goals."
It seems with the Trump administration there is a severe risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
This is an interesting question. When studying the impact of genes on health, what we need is far more “diversity”. Not the type of diversity that puts under-qualified people into the wrong jobs, but the type of diversity that knows that a person with a particular gene variant cannot consume dairy, and another person with a different variant on that same gene, can consume dairy. We can never have personalised health care without knowing that every gene dictates something about the way our body works in our environment, and that we are ALL different. And inevitably some of that difference is defined and can be seen racially, even down the skin colour being a genetic adaptation to climate. We know that very white skins absorb much more vitamin D than black skins. Every doctor must know that if they are to care for their customer, so they absolutely must take genetics, part of which is race, and part of which is gender, into account.
I asked ChatGPT to help me with the language for expressing the difference between different aspects of diversity and this is what it came up with. It's just not that simple. First Chat GPT gave me this list:
Social Diversity: Gender, race, nationality, and representation issues in workplaces or social spaces.
Genetic Diversity: Variation in genetic makeup essential for personalized medicine and evolution.
Cultural Diversity: Diversity in traditions, values, and ways of life.
Ecological Diversity: Variation in ecosystems, species, and habitats for environmental balance.
Cognitive Diversity: Differences in thought processes, perspectives, and problem-solving approaches.
Economic Diversity: Variation in socioeconomic status and financial backgrounds.
I then pointed out the following, that may cross over other categories, but also have integrity in their own right. I am acutely aware of them as an older woman who is seriously under catered for in our society and so feeling severely discriminated against.
Sex Diversity: Designing for the physiological and anatomical differences between male and female bodies.
Age Diversity: Accounting for how needs, risks, and responses differ across life stages, from infants to older adults (e.g., drug metabolism, ergonomic design).
You just can't lump the whole lot under the single word, "diversity". But it still misses the point of what everyone is really objecting to with diversity, and that is promoting one person beyond their level of competence based on some diversity criteria.
So I pushed the conversation further and ChatGPT came up with the following:
The key distinction lies in diversity as value creation versus diversity as entitlement:
Value Creation: Diversity offers functional advantages when systems draw on multiple perspectives and skills (e.g., hiring someone who understands a specific market).
Entitlement or Tokenism: Diversity becomes problematic when used as a reason to prioritize individuals despite lacking the required competence, often at the cost of organizational or societal effectiveness.
And another way of putting it.
Diversity as a system value (subject): This involves incorporating varied perspectives (cultural, genetic, sex, etc.) to improve outcomes—whether in business, medicine, or research.
Example: "Cultural diversity enriches product design by reflecting broader customer needs."
Example: "Genetic diversity allows precision medicine to thrive."
Diversity as an individual privilege (object): This involves leveraging diversity primarily as a basis for advancement or decision-making, sometimes without sufficient regard for competence.
Example: "Promoting someone based solely on gender, without competence, can undermine organizational goals."
It seems with the Trump administration there is a severe risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
This is an interesting question. When studying the impact of genes on health, what we need is far more “diversity”. Not the type of diversity that puts under-qualified people into the wrong jobs, but the type of diversity that knows that a person with a particular gene variant cannot consume dairy, and another person with a different variant on that same gene, can consume dairy. We can never have personalised health care without knowing that every gene dictates something about the way our body works in our environment, and that we are ALL different. And inevitably some of that difference is defined and can be seen racially, even down the skin colour being a genetic adaptation to climate. We know that very white skins absorb much more vitamin D than black skins. Every doctor must know that if they are to care for their customer, so they absolutely must take genetics, part of which is race, and part of which is gender, into account.