Why are scientists seemingly reluctant to accept new ideas?

John Cuthber · August 27, 2012

"What about considering studies that were suggesting a causation of smoking with cancer being squashed by influential scientists (funded by the smoking industry) as a mere correlation? "

Er, what's your point here?

The relationship between cancer and smoking has been found out in spite of vast sums of money from the tobacco industry trying to silence it.

Most countries now have fairly strict laws about where you can smoke.

" Council for Tobacco Research" are nicknamed "the flat earth society" for their refusal to accept the bleeding obvious. Nobody takes them seriously.

jimmydasaint · August 27, 2012

"What about considering studies that were suggesting a causation of smoking with cancer being squashed by influential scientists (funded by the smoking industry) as a mere correlation? "

Er, what's your point here?

The relationship between cancer and smoking has been found out in spite of vast sums of money from the tobacco industry trying to silence it.

Most countries now have fairly strict laws about where you can smoke.

" Council for Tobacco Research" are nicknamed "the flat earth society" for their refusal to accept the bleeding obvious. Nobody takes them seriously.

My point here was that scientific building of objective evidence and also causal relationships could easily be swept aside for political and economic expediency, even by fellow scientists. The work of scientists showing a direct causal relationship of cigarette components and cancer in laboratory animals was suppressed or minimised by commercial interests and, which is worse, by prominent scientists, who were in the pockets of the industry. I don't know how the cigarette industry was exposed but, if we believe Hollywood, it was Dr Wigand's appearance on 60 minutes which gave life to the causal relationship between cigarette smoking and its deleterious effects.

Wigand

Unfortunately for the tobacco industry, the results of these early studies were discouraging. As we discuss in the following chapters, by the 1960s BAT scientists had concluded that nicotine is addictive and company-sponsored laboratory tests showed that components of tobacco smoke cause cancer in animals. The company responded to these findings at first by attempting to create a "safe" cigarette, although it publicly maintained that cigarettes had not been proven dangerous to health. When the scientists had concluded that they would not be able to create a "safe" cigarette, the company retreated behind a stone wall of denial, where it remains to this day.

The Council For Tobacco Research

The same memo {2205.01} that discussed the "tar derby" also discussed another public relations strategy adopted by the tobacco industry during the 1950sthe sponsorship of supposedly independent scientific research. (The memo, written in 1976 by Ernest Pepples, describes the industry's response to the "cigarette/health controversy" over time. As stated above, other aspects of this memo are discussed in detail in chapter 7.) This strategy allowed the tobacco industry to claim that there was a "controversy" over the effects of smoking and that more research was needed to resolve the debate.

Pepples notes that, besides producing filter and low-tar cigarettes, the industry reacted to the evidence linking its products to various diseases by supporting scientific research. The purpose of this research was "to refute unfavorable findings or at a minimum to keep the scientific question open" {2205.01, p. 1}. In addition, Pepples states:

The significant expenditures on the question of smoking and health have allowed the industry to take a respectable stand along the following linesAfter millions of dollars and over twenty years of research, the question about smoking and health is still open" [emphasis added]. {2205.01, p. 12}

The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), formed jointly by US tobacco companies in 1954, was the primary institution that helped the industry promote this message. (TIRC was renamed the Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A. [CTR] in 1964. We will therefore refer to this organization as TIRC when discussing periods from 1954 to 1964 and as CTR when discussing periods after 1964.) By 1985 CTR's annual budget reached $11,278,000.

The industry stated publicly that it was forming TIRC in response to scientific reports suggesting a link between smoking and lung cancer, and that the purpose of TIRC was to fund independent scientific research to determine whether these reports were true. However, the documents show that TIRC was actually formed for public relations purposes, to convince the public that the hazards of smoking had not been definitively proven.

Link

Furthermore, I can also mention Semmelweiss, who made a connection between childbed fever and lack of hand washing. His findings conflicted with the consensus and were ignored until after his death:

Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.[1] Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with mortality at 10%35%. Semmelweis postulated the theory of washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847[1] while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister practised and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died, ironically, of septicemia at age 47.

Wiki

Edited August 27, 2012 by jimmydasaint

iNow · August 27, 2012

I think Jimmy means that there is good reason we work so hard to ensure the ideas withstand scrutiny before accepting them as valid. There are too many ways that ulterior motives or outright deception could be used to suggest otherwise.

jimmydasaint · August 27, 2012

That's exactly what I meant iNow. Thanks for the summary of my long-winded answer.

John Cuthber · August 27, 2012

There is another factor. I think it's less significant than it used to be but, as the phrase goes "steam engines are invented at steam engine time".

As you say "Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory ".

He was ahead of his time. The other bits of science that he needed hadn't been thought up yet.

**CharonY** · August 27, 2012

That isn't actually how it went down. Immediately after the NASA lab's experiment was reported on, a bunch of other labs launched their own experiments trying to replicate the result under the conditions of the original experiment. Skepticism arose when none of them could - it turned out that GFAJ-1 probably can't scavenge arsenic to replace phosphate in it's DNA, but is really really good at scavenging trace amounts of phosphate in harsh, arsenic rich environments. It's not an example of a scientific breakthrough being ridiculed by the community, it's an example of a result being broadly overstated, then retracted when it didn't stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.sciencene...ws_with_arsenic

http://www.sciencema...93/470.abstract

http://www.lefigaro....senic-edito.pdf

Actually that is not quite how it went down either, at least non-publicly. The issue here was the high-profile announcement of a extraordinary claim with little evidence. Main issue is that the none of the involved scientist were really microbiologist (the specialty of the senior authors include soil chemistry/geology and cosmology). So when that community took a look at the data (especially those with training in microbiology as well as analytical procedures) were quick to find errors and it was rather quickly dismissed in the respective communities (as extraordinary claims were not supported by extraordinary evidence).

The published rebuttal paper was basically something that most already expected (actually, there were quite a few labs asking for samples to re-do the analyses).

AFAIK there was not really ridicule going on, but quite some pity (as the lead author was still very junior, the senior ones were pretty much safe).

The only thing close to ridicule is the fact that quite a few scientists did not like the overselling of the data (depending on whom you ask it may have been the senior author's influence).

Especially microbiologist were unhappy that other (non-bio) folks were able to sell things that would (should) not have been published in that form in a proper microbiology journal (and which the authors apparently did not really understand).

Still, Arete's point stands. The main difference being that the paper itself, was very weak (but sold very high) and it was not the subsequently performed experiments that casted it into a bad light (though it was necessary to solidify the criticism).

A final point to add, quite a few felt that the error was not on the side of the junior lead author (though the NASA circus did not really help), but that in this case peer-review was not critical enough. A good example why new claims have to be met with skepticism.

Edited August 27, 2012 by CharonY

Anilkumar · August 28, 2012

Hi everybody,

The short answer is because the vast majority of ideas are wrong. . . Add to this basic aspects of human nature that will make people even more reluctant to give up what they thought was true.

How did we get from "reluctant to accept" to "ridicule"?

When did Reluctance become the scientific method of approaching the new hypotheses?

Which scientific technique takes us from ". . . because the vast majority of ideas are wrong" to "So one must be reluctant even to read new ideas"?

And when did the Knowledgeable adopt the ways of the unknowing to be Reluctant & Ridiculing?

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

In the interest of Science & Mankind;

Which of the following is the right scientific method to approach a new hypothesis, when someone comes to an Expert, with one?

To go through it intently and discuss giving reasons, the consistencies/inconsistencies.
Be reluctant to see it for the reason that most of them are rubbish.
Ignore it totally.
Ridicule it by saying something like, "Oh, why do you think you found something that all the Scientists of the world didn't? In addition, you want me to look into it. You think I have nothing else to do?"

I think in the interest of Science & Mankind, the first one is the right thing to do. If the theory is consistent, Science will be enriched, otherwise the person who brought it will be educated and the strength of Science is emphasized.

And as far as, whether the expert has anything else to do is concerned, yes Truthfully, IMHO she has nothing else to do other than the following, in the sense that they are the main duties that have to be done.

Giving expert guidance/service.
Educate.
Scrutinize new ideas.

If an Expert is reluctant, even to read, leave aside accepting new ideas, then God help Science and Mankind. Who else can do?

Human nature [as Swansont pointed out] should not be part of the yardstick that gauge scientific concepts.

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

The knowledgeable person knows that a person claiming to have a new theory either has right reasons to support it or has reasons that she does not know are wrong. Then what is the point of Reluctance & Ridicule? Just check the reasons or give the right reasons. That is the way of doing Science. Reluctance or Ridicule isn't. Reluctance or Ridicule is human behaviors, not the ways of the knowledgeable to scrutinize scientific theories, not scientific methods.

It is a shame that Reluctance or Ridicule, the ways of the Non-Scientist, is being projected as the means to scrutinize new theories.

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

. . . Thus the bar for accepting a new idea must be high. . .

Why can't the bar for scrutinizing a new idea be high, too?

Are Reluctance & Ridicule high bars?

Isn't Reasoning a high bar?

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

I've shared it before, but it seems appropriate here...

If the Club, Sword, Axe etc represent the Reasoning, Logic, Mathematics, Microscope, Telescope, Thermometer, Voltmeter etc, then it is certainly appreciable. However, if they represent Intolerance, Reluctance, Ridicule, Contempt, Disregard, Sycophancy etc then God help Science & us.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Anilkumar

studiot · August 28, 2012

Anilkumar, thanks for the elequent support.

I couldn't be bothered to argue further.

Edited August 28, 2012 by studiot

**swansont** · August 28, 2012

Hi everybody,

When did Reluctance become the scientific method of approaching the new hypotheses?

Which scientific technique takes us from ". . . because the vast majority of ideas are wrong" to "So one must be reluctant even to read new ideas"?

I don't see how you reach that interpretation. I never said we should be reluctant to even read about new ideas. The reluctance is in accepting them.

Why can't the bar for scrutinizing a new idea be high, too?

Never said it can't be. People who scrutinize a new idea should have relevant knowledge and training.

The bottom line is that science is a process to identify the models of how the world works. You don't accept ideas unless there is a reasonable amount of evidence that the idea is correct. The bar is higher if there is already a model in place that has been shown to work. The new one has to somehow do better. Accepting new ideas without proper vetting leads you to superstition, like the idea that vaccines cause autism, or that homeopathic remedies work, or any other crank science ideas out there.

Furthermore, I can also mention Semmelweiss, who made a connection between childbed fever and lack of hand washing. His findings conflicted with the consensus and were ignored until after his death:

In addition to the problem of germ theory not being yet established, you also have to consider that, while there is quite a bit of overlap, medicine does not always follow the protocols of science, and its practitioners are not full-blown scientists.

Arete · August 28, 2012

Actually that is not quite how it went down either, at least non-publicly.

Makes sense. I only had the public account to go on.

Giving expert guidance/service.

Educate.

Scrutinize new ideas.

Most scientists routinely do these - I participate in peer review of the work of other scientists through journal reviews, attending conferences, participating in seminars and workshops, mentoring both graduate and undergraduate research students enrolled at the institution which employs me, and participating in some community events.

What I don't do is go through unsolicited, wall of text emails from non-experts and blow by blow explain how they don't add up. A) It rarely, if ever persuades the sender of the flaws in their pet idea B) It often incurs the ire of the sender, and result in more wall of text emails C) It's a waste of my time D) It's not what I'm paid to do.

If non-experts want to participate in science, there's courses, there's community/citizen science projects etc. - volunteer at the museum, enroll in a science course, undertake an internship in a research lab, etc, etc, etc. If you want an idea scrutinized by the scientific community, there's peer reviewed journals and there's conferences. Like everything else in life, there's proper channels.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Arete

ACG52 · August 29, 2012

Let's take a look at the typical crank/non-expert 'idea'.

There is no mathematical rigour to it, indeed, there's generally no math at all. It's usually word salad, with terms being used in ideosynchratic, non-standard ways. It's almost always challenging a hundred years of experimentation and research with no experiments or derivations to support the extravagent claims. It's not that they're reluctant to accept new ideas, it's that they're reluctant to wade through reams of garbage clogging their e-mail inboxes.