Report on Correcting Androcentric Bias in Scientific Research: A Case Study in Primatology and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Scientific Paradigms and the Imperative of Gender Equality (SDG 5)

This report examines the historical androcentric bias within the scientific field of primatology and the subsequent correction of this bias through the contributions of female researchers. For decades, a male-dominated perspective produced incomplete and flawed theories regarding primate sexuality, particularly misrepresenting female behavior as passive. This systemic issue highlights a failure to adhere to the principles of Sustainable Development Goal 5 (Gender Equality) within scientific institutions. The transformative work of researchers like Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish serves as a case study, demonstrating how inclusivity and diverse perspectives are essential for robust scientific inquiry and for achieving broader sustainable development objectives, including SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

The Impact of Gender Inequality on Scientific Integrity and Knowledge

Historical Bias in Primatology

The initial framework for understanding primate behavior was constructed with a significant gender bias, leading to a number of erroneous assumptions that became entrenched in scientific literature. This failure to achieve gender parity in the research field directly impacted the quality and accuracy of its conclusions.

• Female reproductive behavior was incorrectly characterized as simple and passive.
• Complex female sexual and social strategies were systematically overlooked or invisibilized.
• Male behavior was treated as the universal norm, while female behavior was considered an exception or of secondary importance.
• This skewed perspective perpetuated societal gender stereotypes, undermining progress toward SDG 5 by providing a supposedly “natural” justification for social inequalities.

The Role of Women in Science in Advancing SDG 5

The introduction of female researchers into primatology marked a turning point, challenging the established paradigm and aligning the field more closely with the principles of equity and comprehensive knowledge. The work of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Amy Parish was instrumental in this transformation.

1. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s Research:
   • Demonstrated that female primates are not passive but engage in active and complex reproductive strategies, such as promiscuity, to ensure offspring survival (“sexual counter-strategies”).
   • Proved that traits like ambition and initiative, traditionally considered masculine, are prevalent among females in competitive environments.
   • Challenged gender stereotypes related to parenting by arguing that human childrearing evolved as a cooperative task, contributing to a more equitable understanding of parental roles as championed by SDG 5.
2. Amy Parish’s Research:
   • Provided scientific characterization of bonobo society as a matriarchy, where females form alliances to control resources and maintain social stability.
   • Documented how sex among bonobos serves complex social functions beyond reproduction, including conflict resolution and group cohesion.
   • Her work dismantled the notion of innate female passivity, offering evidence of diverse social models that support the objectives of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

Enhancing Quality Education (SDG 4) and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

The correction of androcentric bias in primatology underscores a wider problem across numerous scientific disciplines. Achieving a truly Quality Education (SDG 4) requires curricula based on complete and unbiased research. Furthermore, fostering diversity within research bodies is crucial for building the strong, just, and accountable institutions envisioned in SDG 16.

• Medicine: Clinical trials conducted primarily on men have led to incorrect diagnoses and dosing for women.
• Archeology: Complex tools were often attributed to male hunters, while simpler ones were assigned to female gatherers, reflecting cultural bias rather than evidence.
• Psychology: Influential theories on moral development were based solely on studies of male subjects.

In each case, widening the sample to include women revealed previously invisible realities, strengthening the integrity of the institution and the quality of its output.

Conclusion: Inclusive Science as a Foundation for Sustainable Futures

The legacy of Hrdy and Parish extends beyond their specific findings. They demonstrated that scientific narratives about what is “natural” are often conditioned by the cultural contexts and biases of researchers. Their work is a powerful testament to the fact that diversifying the profile of those in science is not merely a matter of social justice but a prerequisite for scientific excellence. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), is therefore intrinsically linked to fostering inclusive, equitable, and diverse scientific communities that can produce the robust and unbiased knowledge needed to build a sustainable future for all.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

The article highlights issues that are directly connected to the following Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The central theme of the article is the historical and systemic gender bias in the scientific field of primatology. It discusses how science was “developed by men” leading to an “invisibilization of feminine sexual strategy.” The article celebrates the “arrival of women researchers” like Jane Goodall, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, and Amy Parish, who challenged and corrected these biases, thereby promoting equality and empowerment for women within the scientific community. It directly addresses the struggle for women to gain access to and influence in a male-dominated field and how their inclusion corrected flawed, androcentric paradigms.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article addresses the quality of scientific education and knowledge. It explains how gender bias led to incomplete and incorrect theories about primate behavior being taught and accepted as scientific fact for decades. The work of female primatologists led to a “revolution” that changed “not only the study of primates, but also our understanding of evolution, sexuality, and gender roles in general.” This relates to ensuring that education and research are inclusive, accurate, and free from biases that hinder the acquisition of comprehensive knowledge.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article argues that the exclusion of women from scientific research is a structural inequality that produces flawed outcomes. It states, “The mistakes of previous research was tied to structural dynamics. Male scientists almost unquestioningly assumed that masculinity represented the norm and femininity, the exception.” The solution proposed and celebrated is “diversifying the profile of those doing research,” which led to the understanding of previously ignored patterns. This directly aligns with the goal of reducing inequalities by ensuring the inclusion and equal opportunity of all, irrespective of gender, in all fields.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.

   The article illustrates a historical lack of participation and leadership opportunities for women in the scientific field. The narrative focuses on how pioneers like Hrdy and Parish “managed to arrive at research positions” and, through their work, fundamentally changed their discipline. Their story is a case study in achieving fuller participation and exercising leadership that reshaped scientific thought.

2. Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.

   The article is a testament to the importance of education for gender equality. It shows how biased education and research created and perpetuated gender stereotypes (“females’ reproductive behavior as being simple and passive”). The correction of these scientific narratives contributes to a more accurate and equitable education that challenges stereotypes and promotes a better understanding of diversity in nature and human societies.

3. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   The article explicitly makes the case for the inclusion of a previously marginalized group (women) in a specific field (science). It demonstrates that this inclusion is not just a matter of fairness but is essential for the quality and accuracy of the scientific endeavor itself. The text states, “diversifying the profile of those doing research has led to the understanding of previously ignored patterns,” which is a direct argument for the benefits of inclusion as outlined in this target.

4. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.

   The article identifies the “androcentric bias” as a systemic, discriminatory practice within science that led to an “incomplete view of scientific reality.” The work of the female scientists described was an action that corrected this inequality of outcome, demonstrating the need to scrutinize and dismantle such biases to ensure equal opportunity for different perspectives to contribute to knowledge.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

While the article does not mention official SDG indicators, it implies several ways to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Proportion of women in scientific research positions

  The article contrasts the past, when primatology was dominated by men, with the change brought by the “arrival of women researchers.” An implicit indicator of progress is the increasing number and proportion of women in scientific fields, particularly in positions of influence where they can formulate “different questions” and challenge dominant paradigms.

• Revision of scientific theories and educational curricula to eliminate gender bias

  The core of the article is about how new research corrected old, biased theories. Progress can be measured by the extent to which scientific literature, textbooks, and educational materials are reviewed and updated to reflect a more inclusive and accurate understanding, moving away from androcentric views. The article itself is an example of this, as it critiques old theories and promotes the revised understanding of primate behavior and gender roles.

• Diversity of perspectives in research methodology and interpretation

  The article concludes that “narratives about what is ‘natural’ tend to reflect the viewpoint, interests, and values of those collecting and interpreting data.” An indicator of progress would be the conscious inclusion of diverse perspectives in the design of studies and the interpretation of data. This is exemplified by how female researchers, being “aware of the importance of overlooked factors,” were able to see realities that were previously invisible to male researchers.

Summary of Findings

Source: english.elpais.com