Bright, through Du Bois, argues that pure and valueless objectivity in scientific
observation is essential in having these observations influence public policy. He explains this by
analyzing the mediate, or the long-term aim of science, and the immediate, or the short-term aim
of science. The mediate purpose, he explains, is to “provide information that can fruitfully be
used to guide policy in democratic states” (1D-12), essentially linking science and policymaking.
The misrepresentation of fact leads to a democracy based on inaccuracy, and these are the stakes
that Bright and Du Bois set in order to argue for scientific objectivity. The long-term goal of
science is to provide relevant information that will forward democratic thought, which
establishes science’s social importance. Du Bois reaffirms the point that he wishes “‘not only to
make the Truth clear but to present it in such shape as will encourage and help social reform’”
(1D-12) in his statement of aims, therefore personally tying himself to the importance of
scientific observation and data analysis. Science is important because it is what influences
society, and this is the first part of Bright and Du Bois’s argument.
When considering the immediate aim of science, both speak more explicitly as to the
importance of value-less research. If the long-term goal of science is to influence public policy,
then the short-term goal of science should be to “‘discover and disseminate the truth about
whatever matter is under investigation’” (1D-13), meaning that the immediate aim of any
scientist is to discover and present information in as truthful a manner as possible. This is the
second part of their arguments, and this leads to a series of conclusions as to why the pursuit of
truth should be of primary importance in research. The first conclusion is that the public doesn’t
trust information that comes out of a desire to present anything but the objective truth. An
example of this would be a study on the impact of smoking sponsored by Marlboro, which has an
economically vested interest in maintaining its consumer base. A democracy influenced by a
1
study like this is in danger of becoming a democracy subject to the will of its corporations, and
the public will question the legitimacy of the research; therefore questioning the legitimacy of
the democracy. In other words, scientific accuracy and objectivity through the unbiased
collection of data should be what guides the policies a democracy is based upon.
A further part of the Du Bois-Bright arguments is that research conducted by ‘non-pure
truth-seeking scientists’ tends to include more false data, fraudulent reportings, and the omission
of fact to support a point. This perverts scientific research into propaganda, and he uses the
example of the misinformation surrounding the history of the Civil War and the Reconstruction
era in the United States being the result of “scholars who sought things besides the discovery and
dissemination of the truth” (1D-12). Du Bois’s argument here is that there is no positive effect of
withholding scientific information, as this falsely influences policy, resulting in the
implementation of laws that misrepresent the groups that the data was reporting on.
Tying all this to his perspective of Black social mobility, he believes that the social and
economic prosperity of the Black community has been stunted through the misrepresentation of
policies influenced by data released with the intention to pacify; therefore, causing the men who
enact these laws to gloss over these issues. This, in turn, causes skepticism and a distrust of
entific analyses “carried out for non-truth seeking means” (1D-14). Not only is this dangerous
for the population, it also poses a danger to scientists as it leads them to conduct lousy research.
These two elements are the arguments that Du Bois and Bright present to support the conclusion
that the immediate aim of research should be objectivity.
What I find particularly interesting about Bright/Du Bois’s point is that it can work for
his cause as easily as it can work against it. Du Bois believed in Black excellence, and wanted to
ensure the socioeconomic progress of the African American population, with him believing that
2
biases in scientific research have led to bad policy making concerning Black Americans. I agree
with him on this point, with phrenology being an example of an implicit bias within research
influencing the way the studies were conducted and the data that was eventually released. To
demean the value of minority races through arguing that there were differences in skull structures
and sizes was racist, and as a result, the research involved cherrypicked examples to justify the
continuation of slavery in the early 1800s in the face of stronger moral arguments against it. The
issue comes when research is conducted with the intent to prove that racial disparity exists in
areas of society that hadn’t been identified as racist before. This bias is one that can lead to a
subjective analysis of scientific data and the omission of detail, but it would be one that would
support Du Bois’s perspective. To admit that the short term goal of science is objectivity means
that he opens himself up to being proven wrong and having vulnerabilities in his own research be
exposed, sacrificing his own pride in the name of unbiased research.
This line of thinking has led me to question the purpose of a hypothesis, since the testing
of a question is researching implicit biases. To come up with a hypothesis, one must question the
environment around them and draw connections that haven’t previously been observed. Would
these questions not be biases? A subjective view of the world that the scientist wishes to prove is
actually objective fact? Science wants to prove causality; however, one’s theory must be
correlative in nature before causality can be proven. The causal nature of a theory, and the desire
to prove this theory, is essentially what Bright and Du Bois argue against, since the desire to
prove causality is a bias in research that all scientists have when coming up with a hypothesis.
While Bright and Du Bois are correct in believing that the value of research is diminished when
personal biases get in the way of objectivity, I don’t believe that this belief is entirely possible.
3