By Gary W. Harding
We are all amazed, fascinated and even overwhelmed by the changes that scientific research has brought to our lives. All the advances have truly made our lives better. But, basic science seeks knowledge whether or not that information is beneficial. As a consequence, some scientific findings are unwelcome.
Billions of people believe that, through science and technology, they can have it all and not have to pay the ultimate price. This belief is so strong that any evidence to the contrary is routinely rejected out of hand. And if ignoring the facts won't make those facts go away, a self-serving assault is mounted to discredit their validity. This phenomenon is apparent in the double-standard associated with society's acceptance of scientific knowledge. If scientific discovery produces benefits for people, the information is embraced. If, on the other hand, scientific inquiry suggests that there will likely be disastrous consequences from human activities, that news is very unpopular.
Let me illustrate the science double-standard with two examples that we all are aware of:
Awhile back, medical scientists hypothesized that it would be possible, under favorable circumstances, to transplant a heart from a recently deceased individual to replace a diseased one. They began studies to determine how to do it. At first, most scientists were skeptical of the results. Now, heart transplants are commonly done.
About two decades ago, medical scientists hypothesized that cigarette smoking caused cancer. Later, second-hand cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco were added to the hypothesis. Recently, scientists stated a connected hypothesis; nicotine is an addictive drug. Data were collected which clearly demonstrated that all this is true. The tobacco industry has fought the acceptance of these hypotheses with enormous investments in pseudoscience and political control.
History Tells Us
A turning away from science has happened before. About 800 years ago, conservative politics, fundamentalist religion, and a self centered focus rose to dominate societal views. This period lasted for nearly 400 years. The arts, sciences and education fell into disfavor. Those few who sought knowledge, despite the times, were labeled heretics. Many paid for their curiosity with their lives. This epoch in human history has been called "The Dark Ages".
Today, we see the beginnings of another dark age. Conservative politics has taken over at the national and local level. Fundamentalist religion is gathering momentum. The people are becoming more and more self centered. Support for the arts is fading. Education has fallen into disfavor; most of our children can't read, write or calculate, let alone distinguish between truth and fiction. Among the people, a science-based understanding of the world we live in is being replaced with a self-serving system of conservative beliefs.
The Art of Science
Scientists studying the mechanism of a natural phenomenon don't all agree on a proposed explanation (which they call an hypothesis). Questions are raised about how the data were collected, how accurate they are, and whether these data are valid measures of the hypothesis. For example, Newton's law of gravity started as an hypothesis which was scoffed at by other scientists. As much as they try to avoid it, a bias can creep in because a scientist didn't look at the right things or how the scientist looked was based upon a preconceived notion of what the answer should be. However, a consensus among scientists on an hypothesis develops as more and more data are collected. Consensus doesn't necessarily prove that an hypothesis is correct; history shows that some widely accepted hypotheses turned out to be wrong. However, most consensus-supported hypotheses turn out to be right. Nonetheless, although all are looking at the same data, there will always be a few scientists who disagree with an hypothesis.
Pick and Choose
Curiously, outside of the scientific community, the judgment from the scientific consensus prevails only when a popular hypothesis is advanced. However, if an hypothesis is unpopular, the contrary opinion of just one scientist is what gets all the attention. If this is not enough to make the hypothesis go away, a pseudoscience attack commences. Economic institutions who's profits are threatened by the hypothesis, contract for "independent" research. Their conclusion is, of course, always contrary to the offending hypothesis. Conservative interests use this pseudoscience to convince those in government to ignore the real science. They have even gone so far as to persuade legislative bodies to cut off funding for unpopular science.
What verses Why
If one separates scientific inquiry into measures of "what" is happening verses hypotheses of "why" it is occurring, we find that the vast majority of the differing opinions among scientists are about why and not about what. For example, measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration show that it has increased exponentially over the last five decades. It is now at a higher concentration than in all of human history. Prior scientific discovery showed that carbon dioxide concentration and mean global temperature go hand in hand through the greenhouse effect. Therefore, we expect global warming. This, if it goes too far, would be a climate-change threat to human survival.
No scientist disputes the recent, reliably measured, carbon dioxide concentration data, although the historical data from ice cores may be somewhat less certain. There is tremendous controversy, however, among scientists and non-scientists alike, about what these data portend. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and it is bad news. It will get much worse if greenhouse gases emission rates are not slowed significantly. Economic interests translate this notion into reduced consumption, a prospect that they find threatening to profits. They have seized upon the opinion of the few scientific dissenters and pseudoscientific rhetoric to dismiss this unpopular science.
Perception
Our position in space is changing at an phenomenal rate. The galaxy we live in is moving away from the big bang. The star which gives us life is spiraling at the edge of that galaxy. Our planet is revolving around that star and around its own axis. Yet, we perceive non of this motion. At the other end of the movement spectrum, the continent we live on is moving west at about 1 cm per year. The axis of the earth shifts orientation about a meter per year. It is not surprising that we do not perceive this because it is just too slow. But, we can measure these changes and verify that the motion is indeed occurring. We can measure other slow changes as well to verify that they are happening, although we cannot as yet perceive them. One of these changes that we can reliably measure is global temperature.
Global Warming
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of scientists drawing upon the data from thousands of scientists, has concluded that "... the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate" (Richard A. Kerr; SCIENCE 270: 1565-1567, 1995). Mean global temperature has increased by about 1 degree centigrade since the beginning of the industrial revolution and will increase from 1 to 3.5 more degrees by the end of the next century. Although this does not seem like much, it is enough to precipitate major changes in global climate. Our descendants will curse us for not having done anything about it when we had the chance.
Copyright © 1995 by Gary W. Harding
Last Updated 19 Dec 1995
Back to the Tragedy of the Commons Homepage