Science's Fragile Flower

[CDarwin]

As I look at (particularly American) society today, I see science under siege. Abuse and manipulation are rampant. The Bush administration has been doing like crazy, and it goes back further. Tobacco companies did it, Gingrich did it, Creationists do it, whole segments of society seem to be systematically distorting and misusing science in myriad and insidious ways.

 

And it works. Why? I would suggest primarily the nature of its complexity and its "ivory tower" reputation, as well as how how poorly most of the public understand it or its methods. There are certainly other factors that I'm missing.

 

In any event, science seems particularly and perhaps fatally vulnerable to all number of abuses. And I would suggest that those movements which stand to benefit from the distortion of science are getting better at it and even more dangerous and time progresses. Is this an inevitable disintegration?

 

I'd like to think not, so how do we fix it? It seems to me that we need to somehow fundamentally restructure the way science, politics, and the public interact in a way that protects science from it obvious vulnerabilities. Does that mean more transparency? Does that mean more education? Can we look to anything from 'other' (from an American perspective) nations that might have figured out a better system? Something more radical? I'm really not sure. Thus, I pose the question to you.

[Saryctos]

Well, what do you want from 'science'? If there's money to be made, then surely some one would design up a science lab, stock it with people willing to make money, and bam, shit gets done. There's little in the way of preventing actual scientific activities, that I'm aware of. Are you talking about the public's view of science, or is there something actually preventing scientific progression?

[Pangloss]

Faith comes in many forms. One of them is exhibited in the frustrations of otherwise logically-minded, well-reasoning people fed up with those who aren't "paying attention". Another is the immediacy of ostensibly scientific findings that turn out to be overexaggerated. Be careful what you wish for. Police states come in many forms too. (Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about because my head is shaped wrong or my skin in the wrong color or I'm taking the wrong drugs.)

 

Let's put our own house in order, shall we? The problem isn't religion, it's lack of perspective. Science isn't "under siege", it's the physical fabric of our entire society, the shady corners of which occasionally get pulled back a little bit for political reasons. Instead of lamenting the awfulness of that fact-of-life in a free society, maybe we should instead ponder our own motivations and embrace these opportunities to reiterate what it is that MAKES science the physical fabric of our entire society.

 

You win some you lose some. We need to be LESS demanding about outrages and attrocities that are clearly neither, and more open-minded, more non-partisan, more appreciative of the perspective of those who don't have PhDs in computational fluid dynamics.

[CDarwin]

Well, what do you want from 'science'? If there's money to be made, then surely some one would design up a science lab, stock it with people willing to make money, and bam, shit gets done. There's little in the way of preventing actual scientific activities, that I'm aware of. Are you talking about the public's view of science, or is there something actually preventing scientific progression?

 

Oh, certainly science should proceed as it will. My concern here is the ways in which the results of scientists are misused or scientific conclusions undermined for political or financial reasons. That's what I'm talking about if I didn't make that clear. Sorry. It's sort of hard to phrase these things.

 

Faith comes in many forms. One of them is exhibited in the frustrations of otherwise logically-minded, well-reasoning people fed up with those who aren't "paying attention". Another is the immediacy of ostensibly scientific findings that turn out to be overexaggerated. Be careful what you wish for. Police states come in many forms too. (Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about because my head is shaped wrong or my skin in the wrong color or I'm taking the wrong drugs.)

 

Let's put our own house in order, shall we? The problem isn't religion, it's lack of perspective. Science isn't "under siege", it's the physical fabric of our entire society, the shady corners of which occasionally get pulled back a little bit for political reasons. Instead of lamenting the awfulness of that fact-of-life in a free society, maybe we should instead ponder our own motivations and embrace these opportunities to reiterate what it is that MAKES science the physical fabric of our entire society.

 

You win some you lose some. We need to be LESS demanding about outrages and attrocities that are clearly neither, and more open-minded, more non-partisan, more appreciative of the perspective of those who don't have PhDs in computational fluid dynamics.

 

I fear I've been misunderstood. For one, I'm not referring to 'religion' here with any specificity. This isn't a Richard Dawkins manifesto. I see ID, for example, as a primarily political phenomenon, not a religious one. I'm also not talking about police states are enforcing the latest science on anyone or even on policy.

 

What I am referring to is the protection of the integrity of science, which seems inherently vulnerable to abuse. You might disagree with that premise, which of course you are quite free to argue. I'm not married to the notion.

 

Free societies are not exceptional among societies in lacking structures on which they are established. We have structures to protect order, private property, the democratic process, and even religion. It doesn't seem necessarily authoritarian, therefore, to envision similar structures designed to protect the integrity of the scientific process.

 

Maybe I should should what precisely spurred me to post this. It was a little piece in New Scientist on how the Bush administration is trying to bury advice by researchers in the EPA that air quality standards should be raised higher than they are now by putting political appointees on the committees that draft the advisory reports. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

[Mr Skeptic]

My concern here is the ways in which the results of scientists are misused or scientific conclusions undermined for political or financial reasons.

[...]

What I am referring to is the protection of the integrity of science, which seems inherently vulnerable to abuse. You might disagree with that premise, which of course you are quite free to argue. I'm not married to the notion.

 

I don't see how science can be undermined or abused. Are some scientists falsifying data? Are some scientists using bad methodologies? Even such fundamental problems are eventually found out. Science is not a good tool for lying to people, by its very nature.

 

But you know what is the perfect tool for manipulating people? The media. Whoever controls the media gets the lion's share of people to believe stuff, even if it isn't true. Perhaps it is time to get some news sources that are run by scientists.

 

Free societies are not exceptional among societies in lacking structures on which they are established. We have structures to protect order, private property, the democratic process, and even religion. It doesn't seem necessarily authoritarian, therefore, to envision similar structures designed to protect the integrity of the scientific process.

 

That would be difficult and scary. They'd have to be incredibly unbiased and intelligent. And putting that kind of power into the hands of a few people would make it that much easier for it to be corrupted by politicians.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a kind of internet opinion poll that you need documented proof of your scientific knowledge to be able to vote or comment in. That would be interesting, and non-binding (aka safe), and would have a large number of people.

 

Maybe I should should what precisely spurred me to post this. It was a little piece in New Scientist on how the Bush administration is trying to bury advice by researchers in the EPA that air quality standards should be raised higher than they are now by putting political appointees on the committees that draft the advisory reports. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

 

Corrupt politicians? Never!

 

However, I doubt that there is much that can be done to remove corruption from politics. One of my teachers suggested that a few decapitations would drastically reduce corruption. But really what we need is for people to care. If some politician is shown to be corrupt, they should be yanked out of office. But people just don't care.

[CDarwin]

I don't see how science can be undermined or abused. Are some scientists falsifying data? Are some scientists using bad methodologies? Even such fundamental problems are eventually found out. Science is not a good tool for lying to people, by its very nature.

 

Oh, so many ways. Data-mining, experts-for-hire, concealing scientific results, spreading false information (ex. 'there are no transitional fossils'), restricting the activities of scientists (the US government has done this to its employees), etc. I don't mean to say that scientists are necessarily responsible for this. Much of it is, as you say, to do with the media.

 

But you know what is the perfect tool for manipulating people? The media. Whoever controls the media gets the lion's share of people to believe stuff, even if it isn't true. Perhaps it is time to get some news sources that are run by scientists.[/Quote]

 

That's a notion. To an extent these already exist, though, in the form of publications like SciAm. That makes me wonder if education is entirely the most effective way to approach this. It's a good thing, certainly, but it doesn't seem to go the full mile.

 

That would be difficult and scary. They'd have to be incredibly unbiased and intelligent. And putting that kind of power into the hands of a few people would make it that much easier for it to be corrupted by politicians.

 

Need it be a few people? I'm not sure. But social structures exist that encompass most if not all of the society and rely on its public consensus. A poll might be one, though I'm not sure how workable that would be, nor am I clear what they would vote on.

 

Corrupt politicians? Never!

 

However, I doubt that there is much that can be done to remove corruption from politics. One of my teachers suggested that a few decapitations would drastically reduce corruption. But really what we need is for people to care. If some politician is shown to be corrupt, they should be yanked out of office. But people just don't care.

 

I hope the only solution isn't to completely fix politics. That would be a tall order.

[Realitycheck]

Progress in an area like this seems to happen at a snail's pace. For every 51% of people who buy into GW, there are 49% who want to hold onto the cheaper status quo and feign ignorance. Nevertheless, usually, there is no holding back the scales of justice. It just takes more time than it should as the 49% use the scientific method to stall the inevitable.

 

As this slightly crooked CPA once said, "There are those who use the law to their advantage and those who use the law to their detriment."

[Pangloss]

What I am referring to is the protection of the integrity of science, which seems inherently vulnerable to abuse.

 

Maybe I should should what precisely spurred me to post this. It was a little piece in New Scientist on how the Bush administration is trying to bury advice by researchers in the EPA that air quality standards should be raised higher than they are now by putting political appointees on the committees that draft the advisory reports. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

 

I appreciate the specificity and I won't even ask for a link -- I'll stipulate that there have been thousands of stories like that over the past 7+ years.

 

But maybe we should establish for the sake of discussion how this constitutes "abuse" on "the integrity of science". What exactly does that mean?

 

If we're saying that the information wasn't allowed to escape to the general public, well, clearly that's not the case, since we know about it. You can't even necessarily say this was the intent of the action (I'm questioning the accuracy of the word "bury"), since in most of these cases we're not talking about actual redaction, we're talking about official reports, and the substance backing those reports is typically available to the general public. What we're really talking about is spin, but the question becomes what constitutes spin, how it differentiates from interpretation or valid analysis, and so forth.

 

And even if you statistically establish that there's more of that going on today than there has been in the past, the question then becomes whether this is a reflection of the ideological bent of the current administration or due to some other factor (or perceived factor), such as the increased transparency of the digital age, the rise of activism and special interest groups, the growing power of corporations, or the gradual erosion of the constitutional authority of certain aspects of governance.

 

And I know this wasn't YOUR point, but just to briefly address MY concern, I have to say that as much as some people here would want it to be so, this stuff just doesn't boil down to "Bush lied, kids died". It just never does.

[CDarwin]

But maybe we should establish for the sake of discussion how this constitutes "abuse" on "the integrity of science". What exactly does that mean?

 

Yeah, I probably should have been clearer on that. It was late last night.

 

When I say 'protecting scientific integrity from abuse' I mostly mean protecting the scientific input side of decision making from being tampered with for political or otherwise similar reasons. I.e. cherry picking data on the dangers of tobacco to make a report suggesting it isn't really harmful.

 

For whatever reason, science seems particularly vulnerable to that sort of distortion. Take the number of people who don't believe humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor as indication of that. These people aren't all just stupid. They've been manipulated, and very effectively, and people who have done it were 'using' bits and pieces and the language of science to do it.

 

If we're saying that the information wasn't allowed to escape to the general public, well, clearly that's not the case, since we know about it. You can't even necessarily say this was the intent of the action (I'm questioning the accuracy of the word "bury"), since in most of these cases we're not talking about actual redaction, we're talking about official reports, and the substance backing those reports is typically available to the general public.

 

But how many people know about it? Probably not enough to make a difference. That's where I see the problem. Things like this happen, and there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to stop them. Inform the public more? There doesn't seem to be any indication that they would care enough to take action, or indeed that there is much action that they could take. What is anyone going to do, vote against John McCain just because George Bush's administration messed with an EPA air quality report?

 

And even if you statistically establish that there's more of that going on today than there has been in the past, the question then becomes whether this is a reflection of the ideological bent of the current administration or due to some other factor (or perceived factor), such as the increased transparency of the digital age, the rise of activism and special interest groups, the growing power of corporations, or the gradual erosion of the constitutional authority of certain aspects of governance.

 

That's all quite valid. This could have nothing to do with weaknesses in science and I could be wasting my typing. But, it's worth considering.

[Pangloss]

Ok, those are valid points, but I have to also point out that in many of these cases when you say that science is damaged, what you really mean is that one ideological interpretation is advanced over another ideological interpretation. You also have to consider what the purpose of the report was -- was it supposed to just produce raw data, or was it supposed to represent the government's policy position?

 

So let's say you have a report that shorts 5 out of 10 doctors recommend aspirin. If your goal is to show the number of doctors recommending aspirin, then I agree that's all the report should say. But if your goal is to tell the public why you are going to provide everyone in the country with free aspirin, you not only have to give them the data, but you have to explain to them WHY the data supports that expenditure of MY tax money.

 

I think your concern is valid, though, because if that's all people are hearing then it becomes a defacto problem even if the government is arguably doing nothing wrong. But it bugs me because much of the criticism isn't based on a desire to see science thrive or even a desire to see that issue reported honestly, it's just a desire to see one specific administration or another demonized, regardless of what they do. I think much of the "anti-science" labelling of the Bush administration is just that -- baseless demonization.

 

That doesn't mean the concern isn't valid, but I do think the partisanship is a larger and more serious issue than whether a report like that damages the integrity of science.

[Vexer]

"The integrity of Science... "

 

What does that mean? Science has a wholeness? That must be protected?

 

You mean, the integrity of the Truth as you see it.

 

You mean, that people are doing things you don't approve of.

 

Because of some Truth they've found. That isn't your Truth.

[Pangloss]

Whatever that means.

[CDarwin]

"The integrity of Science... "

 

What does that mean? Science has a wholeness? That must be protected?

 

You mean, the integrity of the Truth as you see it.

 

You mean, that people are doing things you don't approve of.

 

Because of some Truth they've found. That isn't your Truth.

 

I was talking about the ability of science to inform policy without political interference.

 

I did think up something of a solution (with obvious difficuties attached). If you set up IPCC-type advisory boards for every issue in which science is essential to policy making and barred politicians from considering any sources but those reports, it would stop practices like cherry picking. If you want to stray into speculative social engineering, if these institutions could be embued with such prestige that the public would trust them specifically instead of the "guy in the white coat," then it would have a similiar general effect.

 

The problems swirling around the selection and political biases of those boards are too obvious to need mentioning. Costs might be prohibitive. There would also be the sort of problem that the IPCC has already encountered: time lags. It would be difficult to keep these sorts of reports up to date with the latest research.

 

Perhaps a happy compromise was the old Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Maybe we should just bring that back. I think it would go a long way.

[ParanoiA]

Maybe science would be less prone to abuse if we, as in society, fully understood the "scientific method" as a concept. And further understood the difference between 'science' and 'scientists'.

 

I know that I got straightened out on some of this by Luscaspa, and I found it very enlightening (and kind of painful at the time;)). Now when I hear news reports of some "scientific study" that says milk causes cancer, I know I'm not necessarily hearing from "science". I'm hearing a report, submitted by a scientist, that probably hasn't been through any kind of peer review yet.

 

But that won't stop talk radio from trashing the reports and using that as some sort of evidence of how stupid "science" is. Then, I have to argue with people that listened to that damn show and try to correct them.

 

I don't know if this really fits with the OP, but...

[swansont]

Maybe science would be less prone to abuse if we, as in society, fully understood the "scientific method" as a concept. And further understood the difference between 'science' and 'scientists'.

 

I know that I got straightened out on some of this by Luscaspa, and I found it very enlightening (and kind of painful at the time;)). Now when I hear news reports of some "scientific study" that says milk causes cancer, I know I'm not necessarily hearing from "science". I'm hearing a report, submitted by a scientist, that probably hasn't been through any kind of peer review yet.

 

But that won't stop talk radio from trashing the reports and using that as some sort of evidence of how stupid "science" is. Then, I have to argue with people that listened to that damn show and try to correct them.

 

I don't know if this really fits with the OP, but...

 

Well, there's actually more to it than even that. You hear the report (often from a small-sample trial), and it even may have been peer-reviewed and published, but the only reason it got published (or even possibly submitted for publication) is that the result was unexpected, which is going to happen in some fraction of experiments. The publications get biased by ignoring expected results.

[iNow]

Whatever that means.

 

Pangloss, it's a bad idea to attack and ridicule people who don't do what they are told. It is detrimental to the health of the board and I won't sit idly by when it happens.

[ParanoiA]

Pangloss, it's a bad idea to attack and ridicule people who don't do what they are told. It is detrimental to the health of the board and I won't sit idly by when it happens.

 

What are you talking about? I sure hope I've missed the joke here...

[iNow]

What are you talking about? I sure hope I've missed the joke here...

 

I've simply repeated a set of words that Pangloss has used in the context of global climate change to show how he is, in fact, very often guilty of the behavior against which he is arguing.

[Vexer]

CDarwin, my applogies. I didn't have anything positive to add. (I don't know enough). Was just trying to clarify what was *really* being talked about.