We live in an incredible time of human history. As Barack Obama said: “If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be—what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you’d be born into … you would choose right now.” While the benefits of significant global progress and economic development have not been shared equally, the world as a whole has never been healthier, wealthier, better educated, and in many ways more tolerant and less violent, than it is today.1^,2

How did we get here? Science provided solutions to such calamities as famine and plague, transforming them “from incomprehensible and uncontrollable forces of nature into manageable challenges.”1 By improving the world economy and increasing global wealth, scientific progress helped create a more peaceful and just world. Science eradicated smallpox, discovered penicillin, decoded the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a weekend, helped to halve the maternal and child mortality rate globally, revolutionized agriculture, contributed to extending life expectancy in every country, and has generally granted humanity the gifts of life, health, wealth, knowledge, and freedom. By increasing literacy and communication, science has promoted empathy and rational problem-solving, contributing to a global decline in violence of all forms.1^,2

Of course, serious problems continue to challenge us; poverty, inequality, wars, and violence persist. Climate change, biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic disease threaten global gains made over the past century. However, science continues to be the best tool humanity possesses to address these complex, collective challenges. Indeed, science holds the key to solving these problems—it provides the basis for renewable energy technologies, mitigating anthropogenic impact on the global climate, feeding the world’s growing population, controlling pandemics, and eradicating debilitating diseases. Of course, science alone is not sufficient: science is but a tool that can be used for good and bad. It is our responsibility as a society to use it responsibly, ethically, and effectively.

Fulfilling this responsibility, however, is being hindered by a new, alarming clash between liberal epistemology and identity-based ideologies. Liberal epistemology prizes free and open inquiry, values vigorous discourse and debate, and determines the best scientific ideas by separating those that are true from those that are likely not. The statuses, identities, and demographics of scientists are irrelevant to this great sifting of valid versus invalid ideas.

In contrast, identity-based ideologies seek to replace these core liberal principles, essential for scientific and technological advances, with principles derived from postmodernism and Critical Social Justice (CSJ), which assert that modern science is “racist,” “patriarchal,” and “colonial,” and a tool of oppression rather than a tool to promote human flourishing and global common good.3^,4^,5^,6^,7^,8

In this perspective, we explain the differences between the two epistemologies and argue that meritocracy9 (grounded in philosophical liberal epistemology), however imperfect, is the best and fairest way to conduct science. We endorse policies to mitigate existing inequalities of opportunities, but explain why CSJ-based policies are pernicious (CSJ differs from social justice as a concept6^,7). Therefore, we offer a liberal, humanistic alternative that is compatible with maximizing scientific advances.

Why science is an engine that propels societies to health, wealth, and prosperity—ultimately saving and improving lives worldwide—is well understood.1^,2 The cornerstone of science is the notion that objective truth exists and can be understood through observation, experiment, and iterative hypothesis generation. Because objective truth exists, ultimate consensus among truth-seeking actors—scientists—is possible.

The scientific method has proven an effective tool for revealing objective truths about the natural world. These truths are not final and immutable, but provisional—open to challenge and refinement as knowledge expands. For example, quantum mechanics has shown that the laws governing the motion of billiard balls and planets are not sufficient to describe the motion of nuclei and electrons. Yet, the Schrödinger equation does not invalidate Newton’s Laws, which we continue to use to engineer cars, airplanes, and rockets. Rather, quantum mechanics expanded our understanding of reality by revealing that classical mechanics is limited to the macroscopic world. In much the same way, Einstein’s theory of relativity did not negate Newton’s law of universal gravitation—it extended it to include new phenomena such as black holes.

The scientific method is the core of liberal epistemology. In The Constitution of Knowledge,10 Rauch addresses the current epistemological crisis by reaffirming the central tenets of liberal epistemology (developed by Popper, Albert, Weber, and others). Namely, that provisional truth is attainable and that a truth claim can be made only if it is testable and withstands attempts to debunk it (the Fallibilist Rule). He also emphasizes that no one has personal authority over a truth claim, nor can one claim authority by virtue of a personally or tribally privileged perspective (the Empirical Rule). Similarly, truth claims cannot be less valid by virtue of the claimant’s membership in any particular group. Liberal epistemology implies that “positionality statements” (in which scientists disclose their demographic identity memberships and which are now being advocated throughout academia) have no value in evaluations of scientific claims,11 since the validity of a truth claim cannot be evaluated by knowing the claimants’ tribal or demographic affiliations.12 In liberal epistemology, the validity of truth claims can only be evaluated by evidence and the logic of inferential processes linking that evidence to further conclusions.

However, evaluating the quality of that evidence or the validity of the inferential processes is itself a social process, a point upon which some liberal10 and feminist13 philosophers agree. In both Rauch’s10 and Longino’s13 perspective, no one has final say; scientific truths are determined by an ongoing social process that includes discussion, debate, and criticism until a broad consensus is reached (and which can be challenged by new evidence and arguments). Although both perspectives permit all members to participate in the social process of truth-seeking, in neither perspective is truth determined by the group-based identities of the claimant.

Further, reality-based scientific communities must be open to conceding and correcting errors. The ability of science to self-correct—one reason that scientific truth claims are uniquely credible10^,12—can be epistemically contrasted with conformity to religious and political dogmas, which are disturbingly closed to self-correction. Self-correction is facilitated by pluralism to maintain intellectual diversity and maximize the chances of uncovering provisional truths. Intellectual diversity ensures vigorous skeptical vetting of scientific claims by a critical mass of doubters who ultimately accept being bound by objective truths once they have been rigorously determined by extensive evidence.

These core principles, which have served us well for centuries, are under attack by ideologies originating in postmodernism and Critical Theory,6^,10^,14 versions of which reject objective reality in favor of “multiple narratives” promulgated by different identity groups and “alternative ways of knowing.” They engender “radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge or truth is obtainable” and “a commitment to cultural constructivism,” which asserts that knowledge and reality are products of their cultural context.3^,4 When claims about lived experiences and subjectivism are proposed to constitute a better basis for understanding the world than empirical evidence and facts, the identity of participants in a discourse becomes more important than the substance of their arguments or the strength of the evidence, and objectively adjudicating claims becomes impossible.

These perspectives often view science as a tool of power, are hostile to the central liberal principle of free inquiry and open discussion, and are closed to calls to justify their claims on scientific grounds.3^,6^,10^,14

Such ideologies suffer from at least two serious philosophical problems. The first is that their rejection of objectivity undermines their credibility. If there is no objectivity, then their claims are not objectively true. If their claims cannot possibly be objectively true, there is no reason for anyone to believe them. Their claims warrant serious consideration only if they might actually be true—which requires at least the possibility of objectivity.

The second is that these philosophies3 conflict with a set of principles of modern science known as the Mertonian norms (see Figure 1).12 Merton, a founder of sociology of science, formulated these principles based on his analysis of factors that enabled the scientific revolution and explained that they are dictated by the goals of science. Indeed, following these principles has served us well, and, as we argue below, a departure from these ideas has a long history of harming science.15^,16^,17^,18^,19

Together, the Mertonian principles imply that merit must be the key metric to judge and evaluate scientific claims. The merit of an idea should be evaluated through scrutiny and organized skepticism, essential components of scientific discovery. The ultimate test of the merit of a claim is its ability to accurately predict the functioning of the universe as elucidated through replicable experiment and observation, not whether it feels right or comports with a particular worldview or group interest. Ideological orthodoxies deserve no place in science.

To ensure that the best scientific ideas are put forth, merit must also be applied to evaluate research proposals and prospective students and faculty. Here, merit comprises the scientific claims contained in the research plans, the quality of the proposed methods, and the expertise and academic track records of the individuals involved.

Scientific truths are universal and independent of the personal attributes of the scientist. Science knows no ethnicity, gender, or religion. Of course, by itself, universalism does not prevent the personal views of scientists, which are influenced by culture and society, from affecting the practice of science. Indeed, scientists have not always lived up to the ideals of fairness and impartiality in evaluating merit. In the past, scientific culture contributed to the exclusion of various groups from the scientific enterprise. For example, sexism limited women’s entry into science, and those who helped raise awareness of such issues have done science a service. However, the shortcomings of individuals or the community should not be confused with the science itself. Whether sexism prevented Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin from receiving credit for her conclusion that the Sun was made mostly of hydrogen is irrelevant to the fact that the Sun is made mostly of hydrogen. Although there are feminist critiques of how glaciologists have conducted themselves, there is no such thing as “feminist glaciology,” just as there is no “queer chemistry,” “Jewish physics,” “white mathematics,” “indigenous science,” or “feminist astronomy.”20^,21^,22 Glacial, physical, genetic, or prehistoric phenomena are independent of the positionality of the scientist. By prioritizing the truth value of scientific research, personal influences of individual scientists are minimized.

Merit-based science is truly fair and inclusive. It provides a ladder of opportunity and a fair chance of success for those possessing the necessary skills or talents. Neither socioeconomic privilege nor elite education is necessary. Indeed, several co-authors of this perspective have built successful careers in science, despite being immigrants, coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and not being products of “elite education” (see authors’ biographies in the Supplemental Information). As an example of how the inclusiveness engendered by merit-based science benefits society, the first mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was developed by scientists with an immigrant background (Hungarian and Turkish) who built successful careers in Germany. Likewise, the founder of Apple, Steve Jobs, came from a poor adoptive family and did not have access to regular education.

Merit is a vehicle for upward mobility.23^,24 Recruiting, developing, and promoting individuals based on their talent, skills, and achievements has enabled many who started life in disadvantaged conditions to realize their dreams and build better lives. Imperfections in a merit-based system are not grounds for dismantling or disrupting it. Changes to an effective system should occur only when the superiority of the alternative has been demonstrated. There is no evidence that CSJ produces better mathematics, physics, or chemistry, and it has already damaged medicine and psychiatry.25^,26 While some might argue that CSJ has improved science by disrupting the barriers to entry for marginalized groups, those barriers had been falling for decades, without any help from CSJ dogmas, and long before CSJ rose to prominence and power. For example, in 1970, women received about 10% of all doctoral degrees in the U.S.; by 2006, they were receiving the majority.27

In order to achieve a more fair and equitable scientific community, we should strengthen meritocratic practices. It would be unjust and pernicious not to identify and nurture talent—wherever it may be found. Prioritizing merit-based science does not preclude other actions to enhance inclusivity, an issue we return to later.

The primacy of merit-based scientific truth claims raises the following question: How can we apply merit consistently and effectively? Although it may be straightforward to rank chess players, ranking prospective students, job applicants, tenure candidates, and scientific proposals is more difficult. Judgment may be affected by personal preferences, blind spots, and biases. Yet there are established good practices that have been honed and refined over decades.

In assessing merit and scientific promise, quantitative metrics have benefits, despite their limitations.28 While merit cannot be quantified by simplistic formulas (e.g., number of publications times impact factor), using numerical data to quantify scientific output is a useful component of the evaluation because it provides a quantitative measure of productivity. Good practices currently use a combination of quantitative metrics and qualitative assessment, e.g., letters from reviewers assessing how influential, original, and innovative the work is.

Although we view objective quantifiable metrics (such as publications) as one important dimension of merit, merit cannot be reduced to bean counting. Is one superb publication more valuable than four pretty good ones? This is a judgment call about which different people and institutions may honestly disagree. And what makes a published report “superb” will differ among fields and institutions. Although subjective judgments should play an important role in evaluations of merit, we recognize that they are also most vulnerable to biases.

How, then, can the potential for bias be mitigated so that even subjective judgments have a laser-like focus on merit? We suggest that two questions are central to the evaluation of scientific merit (see Figure 2): (1) How important is the finding? (2) How strongly does the evidence presented indicate that the main claims are true?

Differences of opinion may exist regarding both of these dimensions. However, the key is that focusing on the importance of the finding and the strength of evidence can limit bias. Astronomers may value the discovery of a new exoplanet more than material scientists value improvements in ceramic tensile strength, but this is normal science and can be threshed out among scientists. The identity or positionality of the authors is irrelevant.

Merit also includes mentoring students. Again, numerical data related to the professional development of a candidate’s mentees (papers published, conference presentations delivered, awards received, graduation rate, job placements, etc.) are helpful to build an overall assessment of merit. Academic promotion panels also consider teaching, professional and public service, and community engagement.

Many universities use quantitative indicators to compare individuals working in similar areas at similar career stages to detect deviations and create benchmarks of performance. It is recognized that quantitative metrics vary greatly among fields and depend on the nature of a position (e.g., teaching undergraduates versus graduate-level research) and this is justifiably taken into consideration when appraising academic performance.

Qualitative and subjective judgments are also important. There may be genuine differences of opinion about whether mentoring one student who goes on to be an academic research star is a greater or lesser accomplishment than mentoring five students, four of whom go into industry and one who becomes an academic at a small liberal arts college. But the value of just counting, however imperfect, should be obvious: all else equal, mentoring one star is better than mentoring no stars; mentoring four students who go on to professional careers in industry is more of an accomplishment than mentoring none. Again, though, the identity or positionality of the mentor is irrelevant to the evaluation of merit when using these sorts of quantitative metrics.

The ideological basis of the current attacks on science emanates from certain veins of postmodernism and the identity-based ideologies they have spawned: various CSJ theories, including Critical Race Theory (CRT), related theories of structural racism, and postcolonial theory.3^,4^,5^,6^,14

These ideologies are increasingly finding their way into politics, culture, and education and are negatively affecting science, medicine, technology, psychology, and global health.15^,25^,26^,34^,37 They are not imposed by totalitarian regimes, but spread by activists and abetted by university administrators and business leaders who fail to protect their institutions from these illiberal, regressive ideas.60^,63^,68 The genesis of these ideologies is often obscure to the public or even to their bearers—e.g., administrators trained in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)—who are unlikely to have read Gramsci, Derrida, Foucault, Bell, Crenshaw, and Delgado. But just as a Soviet apparatchik need not have read Das Kapital to have been an agent ensuring conformity to Marxist doctrine, one need not be fully versed in postmodern or CRT-inspired scholarship to be implementing the ideology. The problems emerge from doctrinaire implementation, not from deep knowledge of the scholarship.

Critical Theory and CSJ conflict with the liberal Enlightenment. According to Delgado and Stefancic,5 their characteristic elements include anti-rationalism; anti-enlightenment; rejection of equal treatment, philosophical liberalism, and neutrality in law; standpoint epistemology and subjectivism as the basis of knowledge; and intersectionality. Recently, ideas that emerged from Critical Theory have been aggressively disseminated to the public, notably in books by DiAngelo and Kendi,69^,70 now promoted as essential reading in many schools and universities.

Critical Theories seek to fundamentally change the practice of science.10^,14 Figure 3 contrasts CSJ epistemology with the ideas of the liberal Enlightenment.

CSJ is not an empirical theory, because its tenets are maintained despite their being either demonstrably false or unfalsifiable.3^,6^,7^,10^,14 The existence of objective reality, for example, which CSJ denies, is attested to by every successful engineering project, from bridges to satellites, from cell phones to electric cars, ever conducted. The fallibility of “lived experience” is attested to by a wealth of psychological research demonstrating errors and biases in self-reports.71 Yet, CSJ has found its way into STEMM, evoking parallels with the ideological corruption of science of past totalitarian regimes.19 As an illustration, The Lancet published a paper in 2020 titled “Adopting an Intersectionality Framework to Address Power and Equity in Medicine”72—a call to adopt CSJ ideology in medical education and practice. This is reminiscent of the ideological control of science16^,17^,19 and medicine18 in the USSR. In medicine, Marxist ideology manifested itself in “‘workerizing’ ... [the] apparatus [of medical care]” (i.e., selecting future doctors from the working class, rather than the intelligentsia by means of class-based quotas) and prioritizing medical care for citizens based on class (the proletariat was to be given higher priority than the farm workers; the farm workers, higher priority than the intelligentsia; and so on).18

The CSJ view—that institutions of knowledge, art, and law perpetuate systemic racism and, therefore, must be dismantled, and that merit-based criteria in hiring, publishing, and funding must be replaced with CSJ criteria—has been aggressively advanced by many of our academic leadership—university administrators, executive bodies of professional societies, publishers, etc. A search for “racism” in the titles of papers published by the Science and Nature Publishing groups returns hundreds of hits such as “NIH Apologizes for ‘Structural Racism,’ Pledges Change,”73 “Dismantling Systemic Racism in Science,”74 and “Systemic Racism in Higher Education.” This reflects the axiomatic ideological perspective of CSJ that systemic racism is indelibly etched into every Western institution. The perspective is taken as an article of faith, which is why some have argued that CSJ is more a secular religion than an evidence-based science.75

Below we discuss publications making unsupported claims of systemic injustices and attacking merit. Such publications rarely, if ever, provide evidence that observed disproportionalities in the race or gender distribution of a scientific field are the result of present-day structural or systemic racism. Whereas historical events, such as apartheid, slavery, and Jim Crow, are beyond dispute, the extent to which systemic racism influences STEMM or academia today is a contested question.76 Its existence cannot be established by proclamation. In the absence of compelling evidence, these assertions are not scientific; they are dogma. In his book Discrimination and Disparities,76 Sowell takes to task the central axiom of CSJ—that disparate outcomes for various social groups emerge as a result of discrimination—and presents ample evidence illustrating its fallacy. Sowell’s arguments present compelling counterpoints to the standard set of arguments against meritocracy, such as those presented in The Tyranny of Merit77 and The Meritocracy Trap.78

Space considerations do not permit a full evaluation of the arguments, many of which boil down to merit systems being imperfect; that is, that there are biases in judgments of merit, that they are not always implemented as promised, and that they risk creating hubris in the successful and despair among the unsuccessful. Our perspective is that, however valid these criticisms, merit-based systems are still immensely superior to alternatives that have either been tried before or are being proposed now.77 Communist systems, for example, which are vastly more egalitarian, produced misery on an unimaginable scale.

Can newly proposed alternatives deliver better results? Let us consider an example. In The Tyranny of Merit,77 Sandel proposes the following approach: identify some minimum standard that constitutes “qualified” for admission to Harvard or Stanford and use a lottery system to select among those. Specifically, he mentions cutoffs that would treat 50–75% of applicants as “qualified,” which stops short of abandoning merit altogether. He justifies these cutoff points by using anecdotal data about athletes who were overlooked by professional teams in early draft rounds, but who went on to have highly successful careers in their sport. But examples of a few overlooked individuals do not imply that merit-based selection is ineffective—indeed, players drafted early are much more likely to go on to professional careers.79 Sandel also seems to presume that identically capable college applicants will suffer if some end up attending lesser schools. However, in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), where education provides objectively assessable technical skills, attendance at a top university provides little advantage in students’ earnings potential. Measured 10 years post-graduation, a top-tier education provided no significant earnings advantage for science majors and at best a marginally significant one for engineering majors.80 Moreover, Sandel seems to be unaware that his strategy, by nature of being based on a lottery, guarantees that many candidates will end up in lesser schools than their equally qualified counterparts, an outcome that a merit system, by its nature, aims to minimize.

In recent years, numerous statements issued by scientific societies and papers published in Science, Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and other respected journals have been advancing CSJ ideology and attacking science and liberal epistemology.20^,21^,34^,35^,36^,43^,72^,73^,74^,81^,82^,83^,84^,85^,86^,87^,88^,89^,90^,91^,92^,93^,94^,95^,96^,97^,98^,99^,100^,101^,102^,103^,104^,105^,106^,107^,108^,109^,110^,111^,112^,113^,114^,115^,116^,117^,118^,119^,120^,121^,122^,123^,124 Journals now publish entire topical issues dedicated to CSJ subjects. For example, in 2022, Science published the topical issue “The Missing Physicists: How Physics Excludes Black Researchers”;74^,81^,82^,83 Chemical Education published a virtual DEI collection comprising 67 papers exploring such topics as decolonization of the chemistry curriculum, chemistry and racism, and gender and sexual orientation identities in the chemistry classroom;84 Inorganic Chemistry published an issue celebrating “LGBTQIAPN+ inorganic chemists”;85 World Scientific published the three-volume set Porphyrin Science by Women;86 and Nature published an editorial, “Science Must Overcome Its Racist Legacy,” announcing four forthcoming special issues dedicated to the topic87 (the first issue was published in 202288).

Below, we highlight selected examples of such publications, grouped according to recurring themes. Common among them is revolutionary destructivism, which calls for the established structures and practices of science to be replaced by CSJ-based practices. Words like “excellence,” “impact,” or “quality” rarely appear, or appear only to be problematized (which, according CSJ, can be done to anything4^,6). Instead, we see ample mention of “white supremacy,” “discrimination,” “harassment,” “race,” “gender,” “violence,” “intersectionality,” and “marginalization,” typically without citation to supporting evidence, an egregious failure for journals purporting to be about science.

These pieces fail to acknowledge the progress that has been made and continues to be made toward equality, fairness, and justice throughout the Western world.1^,2^,27^,76 Instead, they attribute, generally without evidence, the underrepresentation of any group in any domain to systemic racism or sexism in the present and within the domain itself.76 This precludes an honest appraisal of the root causes of disparities and is likely to lead, therefore, to solutions that are ineffective, unjust, and damaging to science.76

The scientific community must come to the realization that such articles are not innocent expressions of well-meaning individuals. They are not exaggerations or outliers, but are true to the creed of the ideology that produced them.6^,14 The sheer volume of these publications illustrates the extent of the ideological intrusion into science.

Below we analyze three recurring themes in these papers: (1) science is white and colonial; (2) science is racist; and (3) merit-based policies should be replaced by identity-based policies.

Science has been the driving force behind unprecedented improvements in the global quality of life—from advances in medical diagnostics and cancer treatment to the information technology revolution, from the growth of agricultural productivity to the development of sustainable energy. Science and technology are global and highly competitive. If dismantling the merit-based practices of the U.S. and other democratic countries continues unabated, the loss of leadership in developing cutting-edge technologies is likely to eventuate.

For science to succeed, it must strive for the non-ideological pursuit of objective truth. Scientists should feel free to pursue political projects in the public sphere as private citizens, but not to inject their personal politics and biases into the scientific endeavor. Maintaining institutional neutrality is also essential for cultivating public trust in science.65 The rush to create systems institutionalizing racial, ethnic, and gender preferences in college admissions and hiring will further corrode public trust in academia and science (e.g., surveys from the U.S. show that most Americans, including most Americans of color, reject such preferences66). Although no system is guaranteed to eliminate all biases, merit-based systems are the best tool to mitigate it. Moreover, they promote social cohesion because they can be observed to maximize fairness.

Admittedly, meritocracy is imperfect. The best and brightest do not always win. But the idea that meritocracy is nothing but a myth is demonstrably false, indeed absurd. Were it but a myth, college admissions and hiring could be conducted without regard to applicants’ qualifications, and students or employees could be selected at random.

The role of science in rectifying social inequalities goes beyond “trickle-down” effects of scientific progress. Science can help to develop programs addressing both the root causes of inequalities and the effectiveness of remedial policies. Recent works by Banerjee and Duflo illustrate how well-founded scientific methodology can narrow the gap between rich and poor countries.139 Heckman’s work quantifies the impact of pre-school education on students’ success.140 In the field of artificial intelligence, one of the most active areas of research is concerned with discrimination,141 fairness,142 and social accountability.143 The distinctive features of these examples, setting them apart from CSJ, are that they are based on scientific evidence and logic and they address the root causes of inequalities, rather than their symptomatic manifestations.

There is a large literature in the field of psychology on the role that demographic biases play in how we judge individuals.144 Such biases are real and a justified concern, but fighting them with opposite biases and undermining merit is counterproductive. Two of the most robust findings in the literature are: (1) people massively judge others on their merits when their merits are clear and salient; and (2) in such situations, stereotypes and implicit biases145 are minimized. Thus, a sharp focus on merit minimizes bias and maximizes the chances that those who best meet the relevant standards (for admissions, hiring, publication, or anything else) will be rewarded, thereby promoting inclusion. For example, standardized tests can help to fairly evaluate applicants from diverse backgrounds55 and—if used properly—increase diversity.54 A strict focus on merit, properly implemented, also reduces the influence of bias, department politics, nepotism, and favoritism, thus facilitating diversity, while maximizing scientific quality and the public’s confidence and trust in the academy and science.

How do we begin the process of depoliticizing science and strengthening merit-based practices? We offer six concrete suggestions:

Insist that government funding for research be distributed solely on the basis of merit.

Although much has been written about DEI, the arguments advocating it fall into familiar categories: reparative justice is needed to redress historical discrimination; DEI is necessary to fight current discrimination; and DEI is needed to level the playing field and achieve equal outcomes.

With respect to reparative justice, affirmative action policies are ineffective, arguably unfair, and counterproductive. Although we see no role in science for identity-based policies, we recognize that the playing field is not level. Outreach in admissions and hiring to candidates from less-advantaged backgrounds is important, not only to promote fairness, but to enlarge the pool of promising candidates. Schools and universities have a role to play in leveling the playing field by uplifting students who have come from more difficult life circumstances, not by imposing quotas or lowering academic standards, but by providing students with opportunities to develop the rigorous skills they need to enter scientific fields, and the support to do so. In this way, merit and diversity become synergistic rather than antagonistic.

Advocates of CSJ approaches to DEI often present the options as if it is either CSJ or bigotry. We reject this false dichotomy. Dismantling or disrupting institutional practices that have produced science’s achievements, and replacing them with untested methods opposed to the Mertonian norms is a dangerous experiment that jeopardizes the future of science.

Imbuing science with ideology harms the scientific enterprise and leads to a loss of public trust. If we continue to undermine merit, our universities will become institutions of mediocrity rather than places of creativity and accomplishment, leading to the loss of the competitive edge in technology. Thus, we need to restore our commitment to practices grounded in epistemic humility and the meritocratic, liberal tradition.

We need to be vigilant against the dilution of our merit evaluations by biases, ideology, and nepotism. Moreover, as a community, we should continue to invest in mentoring and education to help people develop their full potential. Adopting the guidelines we have suggested does not mean that we ignore the contributions of past racism and sexism to the inequalities we observe today. It means addressing these issues in a fundamentally positive way—not by introducing diversity metrics into funding or hiring decisions, nor by weakening the standards for university admissions and professional advancement, but by investing in the early pipeline, for example, by strengthening educational outreach and programs to increase access to sustained quality education and early exposure to STEMM.

Scientists must start standing up for the integrity of their fields despite the risk of bullying and verbal attacks; donors and funders should condition their support on non-partisan and rational scientific pursuit. Science as a free pursuit of knowledge untainted by ideological orthodoxies maximally enhances the public good.

Perhaps the grandest irony of them all, and the saddest commentary on the state of academia, is that this article, defending merit, could only be published in a journal devoted to airing “controversial” ideas.147 As we were finalizing the manuscript for publication, the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House released a 14-page long vision statement outlining the priorities for the U.S. STEMM ecosystem.148 The word “merit” appears nowhere in the document. In February, 2023, The National Academy of Sciences released a report titled “Advancing Antiracism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in STEMM Organizations: Beyond Broadening Participation.” The report describes merit as a non-objective, “culturally construed” concept used to hide bias and perpetuate privilege, refers to objectivity and meritocracy in STEMM as myths, and calls for merit-based metrics of evaluation to be dismantled.149