'cause it's pretty rare for us to sort of sit down

"因為它是相當罕見的我們排序坐下來

and talk a little more candidly but Greg was looking up

聊得更坦誠一些，但格雷格卻抬頭看了看。

something in the day we wanted to share.

我們想和大家分享一下今天的事情。

- Yeah, I looked up the top 25 science YouTubers.

- 是啊，我查了一下前25名的科學YouTubers。

This is based on subscribers.

這是以用戶為基礎的。

Putting the list together was kind of striking.

把這個名單放在一起，有點引人注目。

- You have Vsauce, The Slow Mo Guys, Mark Rober,

- 你有Vsauce, The Slow Mo Guys, Mark Rober。

In a Nutshell, The King of Random, Crazy Russian Hacker,

總而言之，《隨機之王》、《瘋狂的俄羅斯黑客》。

Crash Course, AsapScience.

速成班，AsapScience。

- [Mitch And Greg] That's us.

- 就是我們了

- If you couldn't tell from the photo.

- 如果你從照片上看不出來。

- [Mitch] Smarter Every Day, Veritasium, Sci Show,

- 每天更聰明，Veritasium，Sci Show,

Doctor Mike, Minute Physics, CGP Grey Vsauce2,

邁克博士、明德物理、CGP灰Vsauce2。

Backyard Scientist, Vsauce3, Numberphile,

後院科學家，Vsauce3，Numberphile。

It's Okay to be Smart, 3Blue1Brown, Tom Scott,

It's Okay to be smart, 3Blue1Brown, Tom Scott,

Real Engineering, Minute Earth, Simone Giertz,

真正的工程，分鐘的地球，西蒙娜-吉爾茨。

and PBS Space Time.

和PBS空間時間。

- There's a lot to talk about here

- 這裡有很多話要講

when it comes to gender, gender non-binary people.

談到性別，性別非二元的人。

- The first woman on the list, solo woman at least,

- 榜單上的第一個女人，至少是獨行女。

is number 24.

是24號。

There are no Black people.

沒有黑人。

There are no Indigenous people.

沒有土著人。

There are no people with disabilities.

沒有殘障人士。

- The fact that this list is all white, I was surprised,

- 事實上，這份榜單都是白色的，我很驚訝。

but I also then wasn't surprised.

但我也就不奇怪了。

This is an issue that we wanna talk about today

這是我們今天要討論的問題

in the STEM community.

在科學、技術、工程和數學界。

- And specifically in science and in science communication

- 而具體到科學和科學傳播方面

on YouTube because that's the bubble

在YouTube上，因為那是保麗龍

that we all kind of live and work in

我們都生活和工作在

and engage with every day.

並每天與之接觸。

- And what we wanna talk about today is race

- 我們今天要談的是種族問題

in regards to the very significant shift

關於非常重大的轉變

in I think a lot of, especially white people's ability

在我認為很多，尤其是白人的能力。

to talk about institutional racism.

談論體制性的種族主義。

We wanna talk about it with some science today,

我們今天想用科學的方法來討論這個問題。

but also give a tangible goal that we can all do

但也給出了一個我們都能做到的具體目標。

to change the institution of science.

來改變科學的體制。

- If you took science courses,

- 如果你上了科學課。

think about the history you learned.

想想自己所學的歷史。

Whose faces were represented?

代表了誰的面孔？

Who was even allowed to participate in science?

誰還能參與科學？

Were women allowed?

婦女可以嗎？

Were people of color allowed?

有色人種被允許嗎？

- Did queer people exist?

- 同性戀者存在嗎？

They did, they did. (indistinct)

他們做到了，他們做到了。（緲）

- But there's that conversation if you think

- 但是，如果你認為，有這樣的對話

the foundation of science was kind of born out of whiteness

科學的基礎是由白種人誕生的。

and born out of this sort of Eurocentric view

並誕生於這種歐洲中心主義的觀點。

of how people lived there.

的人如何生活在那裡。

- Early science and taxonomy led by Carl Linnaeus

- 林奈上司的早期科學和分類學。

incorrectly posited that humans fell

錯把人類掉落

into four distinct subspecies:

分為四個不同的亞種。

homo sapiens europaeus, the people of Europe who were white,

歐羅巴人，歐洲的白種人。

serious, and strong;

認真，和強。

homo sapiens asiaticus, the people of Asia who were yellow,

亞洲人，即亞洲的黃種人。

melancholy, and greedy;

憂鬱、貪婪。

homo sapiens americanus, the people of America who were red,

美洲智人，美國人誰是紅色的。

ill-tempered, and subjugated;

脾氣不好，又被征服。

and homo sapiens afer, the people of Africa who were black,

和智人，非洲人誰是黑人。

and passive, and lazy.

和被動的、懶惰的。

And Carla Linnaeus even speculated privately

而卡拉-林奈甚至私下裡猜測說

that they might not even be human at all.

他們甚至可能根本不是人類。

There was a historic moment when science started

有一個歷史性的時刻，科學開始

to distance itself from religion and hold its own power,

以與宗教保持距離，掌握自己的權力。

and the power was incorrect and racist.

和權力是不正確的和種族主義的。

The king of France at the time ordered this taxonomy

當時的法國國王下令進行這樣的分類法

to be adopted as the correct classification system

擬作為正確的分類系統

of humans, and as recent as 1921,

的人類，而最近在1921年。

the American Museum of Natural History held an exhibition

美國自然歷史博物館舉辦的展覽

on eugenics which falsely claimed that Black people's brains

謊稱黑人的大腦是優生學的一部分

were smaller than white peoples.

比白種人小。

Charles Darwin's son attended the event

查爾斯-達爾文的兒子參加了此次活動

and adopted the idea of racist eugenics.

並採用了種族主義的優生學思想。

The proliferation of this false science

這種虛假科學的泛濫

led to the U.S. borders closing to people from Asia, Africa,

導致美國邊境對來自亞洲、非洲的人關閉。

Southern and Eastern Europe

南歐和東歐

because ill-informed and racist scientists of the time

因為當時的科學家都是愚昧的種族主義者。

thought people from these countries were mentally defective

認為這些國家的人都是弱智的

and biologically undesirable.

且在生物學上不可取。

People really do have a fundamental belief

人們真的有一個基本的信念

that science isn't biased.

科學是沒有偏見的。

We just have to say we disagree with that.

我們只能說我們不同意這個說法。

- Even if the idea of science in and of itself

- 即使科學本身的理念

is this pure form,

就是這種純粹的形式。

the second you introduce humans into that

當你把人類引入其中的時候

you introduce bias.

你引入了偏見。

- Look at the question, look at the discussion

- 看問題，看討論

at the end of every study,

在每次研究結束時。

that's when people start to fling around their feelings.

這時人們開始調侃自己的感情。

- The way that we study science

- 我們研究科學的方式

and the things that we learn about,

以及我們瞭解到的事情。

if they're led by a homogenous group,

如果他們是由一個同質化的群體上司的。

we're really only learning about one lens of life.

我們真的只是在學習生活的一個鏡頭。

- A good scientist takes in information

- 一個好的科學家會接受資訊

and changes their worldview.

並改變了他們的世界觀。

So they are adaptable.

所以他們的適應性很強。

So I do think that as a science community, we can, you know,

所以我認為作為一個科學界，我們可以，你知道的。

fight institutionalized racism potentially more easily,

更容易打擊制度化的種族主義；

'cause we are willing to take in the facts

"因為我們願意接受事實

and to make changes based on them.

並在此基礎上進行修改。

- Here are some examples of research

- 以下是一些研究的例子

on anti-Black racism and STEM.

關於反黑人種族主義和科學、技術、工程和數學。

- Studies have found that white doctors are less likely

- 研究發現，白人醫生不太可能

to prescribe Black patients medication for blood clots.

給黑人患者開治療血栓的藥。

They believe racist myths about Black people.

他們相信關於黑人的種族主義神話。

For example, that they have higher pain tolerance

例如，他們有更高的疼痛耐受性

and thicker skin.

和較厚的皮膚。

They themselves don't feel like they're being racist,

他們自己也不覺得自己是種族主義者。

but within their institutions,

但在其機構內部。

they are acting with institutionalized racism.

他們的行為帶有制度化的種族主義。

- There are even infamous scientific experiments

- 甚至還有臭名昭著的科學實驗

that have used Black bodies without their consent

擅自使用黑人身體的行為

for the benefit of science.

為了科學的利益。

So the Tuskegee Experiment is a famous example

所以塔斯基吉實驗是一個著名的例子。

where they use around 600 Black men with syphilis

在那裡，他們使用了大約600名患有梅毒的黑人男子。

and told them they were getting treated,

並告訴他們正在接受治療。

but they actually weren't so that they could study

但實際上他們並不是為了讓他們研究

what happens when syphilis goes untreated for 40 years.

梅毒40年不治會怎樣。

And this was without consent.

而這是未經同意的。

- The most recent "Nature" magazine,

- 最近的《自然》雜誌。

and there's a study about how they're conglomerating

有一項研究是關於他們是如何集團化的

a bunch of genomic research, fascinating research

一堆基因組研究，引人入勝的研究。

to understand humans and to understand diseases in humans.

來了解人類，瞭解人類的疾病。

And at the end they say there were very few Black people,

而在最後他們說，黑人很少。

very few South Asian people.

很少有南亞人。

That's an example of today

這就是今天的一個例子

an institution finding breakthroughs and research

突破性研究機構

and very important genomic information to help

和非常重要的基因組資訊，以幫助

our health that is ignoring a whole population of people

我們的健康，忽視了整個人口的健康。

due to a system.

由於一個系統。

- There's also a lot of research on research.

- 在研究上也有很多研究。

So minorities are less likely

所以，少數民族不太可能

to have their research published.

發表他們的研究成果。

They're less likely to be given raises or rewards,

他們不太可能得到加薪或獎勵。

even when they're at the same level

同級

as their white colleagues.

作為他們的白人同事。

There's also something really interesting

還有一些非常有趣的事情

called the Diversity Paradox.

稱為多樣性悖論。

So they found that minorities are more likely

所以他們發現，少數民族更有可能

to have innovative ideas,

要有創新的想法。

they're bringing in new perspectives for science,

他們為科學帶來了新的視角。

but they're less likely to be given academic positions.

但他們獲得學術職位的可能性較小。

Studies have shown that white people get

研究表明，白人得到

53% more callbacks than minorities,

比少數民族多53%的回電。

and then even in those callbacks,

然後即使在這些回調中。

they've started to do studies of, okay,

他們已經開始做研究的，好吧，

who actually gets the job when they're equally equipped

一衣帶水，誰主沉浮

or equally qualified for the job.

或同等條件下的工作。

White people end up getting the job

白人最終得到了這份工作

143% more often than minorities.

比少數民族多143%。

Yes, we can say we just wanna hire the best person

是的，我們可以說，我們只是想僱傭最好的人。

and put the most talented person in that position,

並把最有才華的人放在那個位置上。

but I think we just have to acknowledge

但我認為我們只需要承認

that we all have biases that are unintentional,

我們都有無意的偏見。

that impact what it means to be the best candidate.

影響到成為最佳候選人的意義。

And if we can't acknowledge that root problem,

如果我們不能承認這個根本問題。

then we'll never even be able to address

那我們就永遠無法解決

sort of the more surface problems.

種比較表面的問題。

- Now we should talk about something that we can do.

- 現在我們應該談談我們可以做的事情。

If we are in the sciences, when we enter rooms,

如果我們在科學中，當我們進入房間。

when we enter meetings, if everyone happens to be white,

當我們進入會議時，如果大家恰好是白人。

I think that's an important time to talk about anti-racism.

我認為這是一個談論反種族主義的重要時刻。

I think a lot of work can be done in rooms of white people

我認為很多工作可以在白人的房間裡完成

'cause we know those meetings are happening, okay.

因為我們知道這些會議正在發生，好嗎。

We are in them all the time.

我們無時無刻不在其中。

A fellow science communicator and friend Dr. Esther told us,

一位同為科學傳播者的朋友埃斯特博士告訴我們。

"It is not up to marginalized people to be burdened

"被邊緣化的人不應該成為負擔。

"with making systemic change in institutions."

"與使機構發生系統性變化"。

- I think as creators, we can all be putting in more effort

- 我覺得作為創作者，我們都可以付出更多的努力。

to highlight other voices that are different from ours.

以突出其他與我們不同的聲音。

How can we as a community, including us,

我們這個社會，包括我們，怎麼能。

look to people that have different perspectives?

向有不同觀點的人看齊？

- [Greg] Dr. Esther we'll teach you fascinating stories

- 埃斯特博士，我們會教你迷人的故事。

about marginalized figures in STEM,

關於科學、技術、工程和數學領域的邊緣化人物。

Jordan Harrod can teach you about

喬丹-哈羅德可以教你

how AI preserves systemic racism,

AI是如何維護系統性的種族主義的。

Mike Likes Science can teach you a rap about coding,

邁克喜歡科學可以教你一個關於編碼的說唱。

Jabrils can show you how AI can draw

Jabrils可以告訴你，AI如何畫畫？

new Pokemon with math,

新口袋妖怪與數學。

Jaida Elcock on TikTok is so funny

Jaida Elcock在TikTok上的表現是如此有趣

and will teach you about animal facts,

並將教你認識動物的事實。

and Anna Gifty, another amazing friend on Twitter,

和Anna Gifty，另一位Twitter上的神奇朋友。

will blow your mind and she actually was able to make us

會讓你大吃一驚，她居然能讓我們。

even like economics.

甚至像經濟學。

- But we also think we really need

- 但我們也認為我們真的需要

to talk about the institutions.

來談機構。

So obviously we make a lot of content on YouTube,

所以很明顯，我們在YouTube上製作了很多內容。

but also Facebook and Instagram and all of these platforms

但也有Facebook和Instagram和所有這些平臺。

that play a role in this.

的作用，在這。

And I think as viewers and as creators,

而我認為作為觀眾和創作者。

there are ways that we can influence

我們有辦法影響

and impact those groups as well.

並對這些群體也產生影響。

- In 2019, Google's workforce was 54.4% white,

- 2019年，谷歌的員工中白人佔54.4%。

39.8% Asian, 5.7% Latinx, 3.3% Black,

亞裔39.8%，拉丁裔5.7%，黑人3.3%。

and 0.8% Native American.

和0.8%的美國土著人。

So these stats are for America.

所以這些數據是美國的。

2019 Google's leadership was 66.6% white,

2019年穀歌的領導層是66.6%的白人。

28.9% Asian, 3.3% Latinx, 2.6% Black, 0.7% Native American.

28.9%為亞裔，3.3%為拉丁裔，2.6%為黑人，0.7%為美洲土著。

And also staggering, Google's workforce is only 31.7% women

而同樣令人咋舌的是，谷歌的員工隊伍中，女性僅佔31.7%。

and their leadership is only 26.1% women,

而她們的領導層只有26.1%是女性。

assuming gender binaries.

假設性別二元化。

They didn't have information

他們沒有資料

about gender nonconforming people.

關於不符合性別的人；

In 2019, Facebook's workforce was 44.2% white,

2019年，Facebook的員工中白人佔44.2%。

43% Asian, 5.2% Hispanic, 3.8% Black, 3.1% mixed,

43%為亞裔，5.2%為西班牙裔，3.8%為黑人，3.1%為混血。

and 0.7% other.

和0.7%的其他。

Looking at leadership, 65.4% were white,

從領導層來看，65.4%是白人。

24.9% Asian, 3.5% Hispanic, 3.1% Black, 2.9% mixed,

24.9%為亞裔，3.5%為西班牙裔，3.1%為黑人，2.9%為混血。

0.3% other.

0.3%其他。

This shows you how the higher you go up

這說明你越往上走

in all of these institutions, the whiter it gets.

在所有這些機構中，它越發的白。

So we need to talk not only about hiring diverse people,

所以，我們不僅要談聘用不同的人。

but also creating better promotion initiatives

但也要創造更好的推廣舉措

to get different people to the top

讓不同的人上位

creating cultures where people of diverse backgrounds

創造不同背景的人都能參與的文化

actually wanna work at these companies.

其實想在這些公司工作。

Like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Silicon Valley startups

像谷歌、Facebook、Twitter、硅谷創業公司一樣

should have to openly disclose which universities

哪些大學應該公開

they are recruiting from.

他們正在招募來自。

In America, how many are they hiring

在美國，他們有多少人被僱用

from predominantly white schools like Stanford or MIT

斯坦福大學或麻省理工學院等白人學校的學生。

compared to HBCUs like Howard or Alabama A&M?

與霍華德或阿拉巴馬農工大學等HBCU相比？

Facebook has currently been accepting

目前，Facebook已經接受了

paid political advertising on their platform,

在其平臺上投放付費政治廣告。

regardless of if it has false claims or hate speech.

不管它是否有虛假的說法或仇恨言論。

They say they do not want to be the arbiter of truth,

他們說他們不想成為真理的仲裁者。

but their algorithms already control our truth.

但他們的算法已經控制了我們的真相。

They decide what we see, what goes viral,

他們決定了我們所看到的東西，什麼是病毒。

and what shows up on your timeline.

以及你的時間軸上顯示的內容。

And 90% of hate speech on Facebook is identified by AI.

而Facebook上90%的仇恨言論是由人工智能識別的。

Who designs this technology is integral to it working.

誰來設計這項技術是它發揮作用不可或缺的。

What I am asking for is public information

我要求的是公開資訊

about the breakdown of race and gender representation

關於種族和性別代表性的分類

in specific jobs.

在具體工作中。

'Cause I'm curious who is building these algorithms

因為我很好奇是誰在構建這些算法 'Cause I'm curious who is building these algorithms.

that are controlling what we all see.

控制著我們所看到的一切。

It's about arming ourselves with that information

我們要用這些資訊來武裝自己

to challenge when we're in those meetings,

當我們在這些會議上挑戰。

to talk to people in positions of power at Facebook

與Facebook的掌權者交談。

or Instagram or Google.

或Instagram或谷歌。