The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology

The article, "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology," exposes the pervasiveness of societal constructions. It reveals that even a subject area that is deemed the most objective, based in theories and fact, and supported by pure experimental data can be tainted by the beliefs of man. That this is possible serves as an implication for other subject areas--religion, history, the arts, etc. If feminist critique offers new theories and leads to new discoveries in contemporary cell biology, then what does this mean for other subject areas. Is it possible that we are limiting our knowledge in all areas by failing to let go of socially constructed beliefs?





This article offers that even those who were highly trained specialists in their disciplines were still impacted by their beliefs and their personal experiences in developing new theories and that the inclusion of these beliefs and experiences in any way is a source of error. Reading this, I couldn't help but to reflect upon my experience as a student majoring in biology and the tendency for me to accept the theories of the founding fathers of biological science as complete truth. I never thought that the cell theory could have been impacted by beliefs about how men and women should interact in relationships. In the second paragraph under the section titled "A Nuclear Family: The Sexualization of the Cell," the authors present these relationships. In Germany, where autocratic families were prevalent, the model of the cell included a nucleus that served as a dictator to the cytoplasm. American scientist, T.H. Morgan, modeled his cell theory after American-like families; the nucleus and the cytoplasm conferred, and then the nucleus told the cytoplasm what to do. Waddington, a British socialist who viewed his marriage as a partnership, modeled his theory with the nucleus and the cytoplasm interacting in a partnership to carry out life functions. Lastly, E.E. Just, a Black American who felt he was a servant to his lover, created a model where the cytoplasm dominated over the nucleus.

It's amazing to me how their theories were so closely related to their experiences/beliefs. It definitely has made me begin to start questioning a great amount of things that I just took to be fact. I definitely agree with the article that feminist critique is needed to reduce error in biology, but I would add that all sorts of critiques are needed for several different subject areas. It would lead to a more informed and less restricted body of knowledge.