Physics Wor ld November 2013 19

physicswor ld.com Comment: Rober t P Crease

Critical Point Deciding with science

Activists protesting against genetically modified organisms recently destroyed a field trial of genetically modified rice in the Philippines. Participants and sympathizers claimed that the crop was poisonous, would destroy biodiversity and was a means for industry to exploit the poor.

But the rice had no known health haz-ards. It did not dominate other rice species and thus would not threaten biodiversity. It had been altered to create beta caro-tene – a precursor to vitamin A, which counteracts blindness and other illnesses associated with weakened immune sys-tems, thereby helping hundreds of thou-sands of children lacking vitamin A. The rice was developed not by industry but the International Rice Research Institute, a non-profit organization.

The Philippine vandalism, however, harmed far more than the rice and its intended beneficiaries. It damaged the credibility of the entire scientific infra-structure that created the rice and deter-mined it to be safe.

This controversy is but one of several instances – including fracking, nuclear power, climate change, vaccination and evolution – playing out in ways that mar-ginalize expertise and make scientific evidence seem irrelevant. One may have sound non-scientific reasons for opposing things like genetic modification, such as not wanting to “instrumentalize” nature. But making good judgments requires respect-ing what science has discovered about the world and debating issues on their merits. Marginalizing science allows such contro-versies to unfold as “morality plays” about social inequalities or injustices, or only about politics or economics, rather than as complex negotiations between what we want and what is possible. Inevitably, bad decisions result.

Never in history have good judgments about issues such as energy, pollution and health depended more on science. Yet incorporating science into such debates has been beset by saboteurs, undermined by politicians and met with scepticism. Why?

Three reasonsThe answer lies in three separate entan-gled ingredients, which I dub “manipu-lated acoustics”, “impure science” and “magical thinking”.

“Acoustics” refers to the way partisans of positions are ever more adept at mimick-ing and manipulating the voice of science itself. They do this by manufacturing facts and spreading pseudo-evidence, generat-ing pseudo ”experts”, using celebrities as spokespeople and taking advantage of the media’s penchant for granting equal time to different sides of an argument. I needn’t supply examples; you can find them your-self. These factors amplify voices in a con-troversy regardless of their integrity.

By “impure science”, I mean the way par-tisans often denounce scientific findings they don’t like. They point to discrepancies between how these findings were produced

and the image of science we learned in school as emerging “from nowhere”: pure, value-free and definitive. If a particular study was partly funded by a pharmaceuti-cal company, if a model depends on projec-tions rather than certainties, or if someone has ties to the nuclear industry, the results must be suspect, they claim.

Finally, and surprisingly, scientific advance itself implicitly promotes a harm-ful “magical thinking”. This curious phe-nomenon was first identified by the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico almost 300 years ago in his 1725 book New Science. Vico pointed out that the very matura-tion of human thought tends to foster an over-reliance on analytical rationality that encourages people to indulge themselves and view the world’s resources as at their disposal. The very success of science and technology, in other words, encourages the illusion that almost everything is within our grasp.

This magical thinking makes us feel like free agents – entitled to choose our forms of energy, nutrition and environmental conditions, without having to make severe, costly and risky trade-offs. It’s an illusion that’s amplified by powerful money and political influence. Don’t like fossil fuels but scared by nuclear? Go solar! Hate star-vation but creeped out by genetic manipu-lation? Grow more food! And if we can’t do these things, it must be someone else’s fault, probably a conspiracy. We are accus-tomed to relying on our benefits but resent having to pay for the infrastructure that produced them. As one US congressman remarked – my informant heard it first-

From fracking and nuclear power to alternative medicine and climate change – why is scientific input so often distorted or ignored where it is truly critical? Robert P Crease looks for some answers

Distorted facts Genetic modification of crops is one key issue where scientific evidence is often ignored.

Shu

tter

stoc

k/m

otor

olka

Never in history have good judgments about issues such as energy, pollution and health depended more on science

20 Physics Wor ld November 2013

physicswor ld.comComment: Rober t P Crease

hand but insists on remaining anonymous – “Why do we need Landsat satellites when we have Google Earth?”

The critical pointHow, then, can we deal with these problems?

Contending with wonky acoustics requires patiently tracking down and exposing fabrications and misrepresenta-tions – a task for scientists and the sceptics

movement. It is tedious and time-consum-ing for sure, but there is a silver lining: when partisans manipulate acoustics they at least presuppose that offering evidence and appealing to experts is how such debates should work.

Dealing with charges of impure science, meanwhile, is not a task for scientists but sci-ence educators. Science education needs to convey the reality that real science does not

emerge “from nowhere” but from real peo-ple with passion, values and commitments. Science, we need to remind everyone, is our best tool for navigating the complex modern world filled with a fear of hazards and peo-ple who manipulate and prey on that fear.

As for countering science-induced magi-cal thinking, that is not a task for either scientists or educators but for the humani-ties. It would require an improved human self-recognition; making better known the full story of how human thought and institutions evolved, and how some things are gained and others lost with each step. Realizing progressive human ambitions, we need to remind ourselves, usually comes with hidden costs.

There is, in short, no quick fix for repair-ing the dismal way we resolve controver-sies. It won’t work simply by restating the importance of science, which would only make science appear like one lobby among others. Vico thought the solution required the development of what he called a “new science”; today, it will require revamping science, science education and the humani-ties for the 21st century.

Robert P Crease is a professor in the Department of Philosophy, Stony Brook University, and historian at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, US, e-mail robert.crease@stonybrook.edu

Just saying no Anti-fracking protest in Balcombe, UK, in August.

iSto

ckph

oto/

rsok

olof

f

Next month in Physics WorldNowhere to hide?As the climate warms, physical geographers are assessing the fate of fragile alpine plants that are being pushed from their homes as warm-loving lowland plants encroach on their turf

New light on old mastersHow a physics-based laser-imaging technique can map the distribution of pigment in art works and possibly even in pottery and statues

Christmas booksTime for our end-of-year round-up in the reviews section, as weighty biographies of Robert Oppenheimer and Hans Christian Ørsted square up against lighter fare on scientific blunders, alien life and the maths of The Simpsons

Plus News & Analysis, Forum, Critical Point, Feedback, Reviews, Careers and much more

physicsworld.com

iSto

ckph

oto/

Fran

kvan

denB

ergh