Blinded By Non-Science

By Phineas Dash

Maybe it’s age, but I am becoming more detached from the daily news. What follows might even be pontificating, but as the oracular Dash brother, I guess that’s my job. So here are some thoughts prompted by a request for some words on a progressive view of science…

Evaluating science and using the findings of science are collective responsibilities in a progressive democracy. We need to be informed and skeptical, without surrendering to unexamined fears and projections of our own anxieties and desires.

We must be skeptical because many "scientific" findings, and the research (which may be valid or not) that leads to them are increasingly financed by special interests, with a financial stake in the outcome. We find particularly egregious examples in drug testing which is often inadequate and inaccurate, done by the very companies who profit by the sale of the drugs. These days they sometimes spend more money on advertising than research and testing. We find it as well in biotechnology, in which huge companies can suppress information and use science to destroy individual freedom as well as the environment (by forcing the use of genetically altered seeds, for example).

Science is used as an instrument of dominance when it is marshaled to harm those least able to defend themselves. It is no coincidence that most toxic waste sites and other harmful processes are located where the poor live, in particular on Indian reservations.

Even public financing of science, without scrutiny, is not a solution, for it has been corrupted as well. Americans became rightly suspicious of science and technology when nuclear weapons "experts" both lied about dangers and created closed systems they claimed were rational, but from outside the system appeared insane: therefore, Doctor Strangelove.

These days, besides weapons research, other science and technology-based enterprises are subsidized that are in themselves harmful, but also benefit large corporations rather than the public---corporations that often escape their tax responsibilities.

When science is used in these ways, a chain reaction of corruption begins that threatens the credibility of science everywhere. Huge commercial interests are now willing and able to bypass traditional safeguards such as peer review, or simply bribe their way to acceptance. The money they spend on advertising discourages scrutiny from the media depending on advertising income. Already the dumbing down of information media means sloppy science reporting, not only in terms of the science itself, but such crucial information as methodology and who paid for the research.

When science is used as an instrument of self-interest and profit---especially when it becomes a tool of public relations--- it is but a short step to the abuses we've seen by the Bush administration, in distorting and ignoring scientific findings, particularly on the climate crisis, that doesn't support their political agenda.

Like just about everything else, science has become part of this overheated inside-out public frenzy, where unexamined unconscious reactions get projected onto everyone and everything in sight, usually in the form of political bombast. Roger Pielke, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at U. of Colorado, affirms that "science is becoming yet another playing field for power politics," which isn't so new, but what may be is, "complete with the trappings of media spin and win-at-all-costs attitude. Sadly, much of what science can offer policymakers, and hence society, is being lost."

That's simply so science can play a role, rather than become (as it once seemed it would become) the indisputable authority. That was never going to be a good thing.

Even in areas not so directly affected by corporate and political interests, science must be viewed and evaluated intelligently. Scientists are human beings, and for all of their rhetoric of objectivity, the reliance on scientific principles does not guarantee that accurate findings and especially new and better explanations will always be judged on their merits and accepted immediately. In his book, "The Big Bang," Simon Singh exposes the dirty little secret least familiar to nonscientists: the degree to which science is hostage to human failings of ego, status and reward. Singh cites the observation of renowned physicist Max Planck that new ideas seldom win over adherents of old ones -- usually a generation must pass while the new idea's "opponents gradually die out ..." He also quotes English geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's "four stages of acceptance" of a scientific idea: "i) this is worthless nonsense, ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view, iii) this is true, but quite unimportant, iv) I always said so."

Scientists also often are biased to the simplest (or "elegant") explanation, which they've found in the past is often the best one. But it is not always so, especially as science gets into deeper and more fundamental questions. It may turn out that fundamental answers are complex. This appears to be so, for example, in the evolution of living beings. A growing number of scientists (most recently, Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb in their book, EVOLUTION IN FOUR DIMENSIONS (MIT Press, 2005) are questioning the exclusive reliance on genes as the engines of inheritance and evolution. From molecular biology and more unbiased animal study, new findings support the idea that other factors are at work, including behavioral and symbolic transmissions of traits.

But apart from ego and careerism, science that touches upon political and religious controversies can get caught in the crossfires. Part of the resistance to new theories of natural selection is from scientists who feel they must circle the wagons against reactionary views (from downright denial of evolution to so-called "intelligent design" schools) and maintain a unified front focus on simple ideas, that may have become dogmas.

Not all the trends are bad, however. There is increasing diversity among those engaged in science. Women, for example, have made usually unacknowledged contributions throughout the history of western science, but more are becoming prominent in their fields today. They may bring a more collaborative attitude and a greater openness to complexity, although deterministically ascribing traits on the basis of gender would be, as they say, unscientific.