Ordinarily, as I introduce the study of science to a classroom full of nervous students, I begin by describing a time, over two thousand years ago, when science was simply a matter of conjecture and hypothesis. The Greek philosophers, who dominated thought during that period, spent considerable time speculating about the nature of the world and its workings. Amazingly, it appears that it never occurred to these great thinkers to test their ideas with experiments. Consequently, scientific “truth” was recognized solely on the basis of influence, consensus, and compatibility with cultural beliefs. Science did not begin an organized movement forward, making real progress, until the hypothesis making of the Greek philosophers was wed to experimentation. These two endeavors lie at the heart of the scientific method, and are indispensable requirements for an honest investigation of scientific phenomena.
It is human nature to develop an attachment to an idea or a hypothesis, and while science has always faced the challenge of such biased expectations, the truth eventually emerges as a consequence of honest researchers setting personal bias aside. Even well orchestrated frauds are exposed, because false ideas wither in the face of properly designed experiments. This self-correcting nature of science has served us well, until now.
It is obvious to this observer that we are on a dangerous path where, once again, scientific truth is being established by popularity and consensus. This radical swing away from a well-established strategy of dispassionate, rational investigation, to a policy of advocating a convenient truth that better fits a social agenda, will hurt rather than hinder, and may damage the value of science permanently.
When science is replaced with slick presentations of opinion, designed to foster consensus and advocate an agenda, the real search for truth is halted. It might be asked who is responsible for this hijacking of science, and the answer is simple. The news media is one of the culprits. They have always had an uneasy relationship with science, in that their motive often seems to be to sensationalize, rather than inform. If the scientist’s role is to dispassionately investigate, the role of the modern journalist is often just the opposite, i.e. to dramatize and convince. Many journalists consider themselves crusaders, attempting to right the wrongs of the world, and the last thing that the true scientist needs is an ill-informed misrepresentation of his/her work, designed to boost circulation and ratings, or the agenda of a crusader.
Another problem with modern science is how it is funded. Government, industry, as well as other advocacy groups, fund considerable amounts of research, and those funds are often earmarked, based on perceived need. The role of the modern scientist, beyond doing the research, often includes a certain amount of advocacy to generate a rationale for a research grant. Scientists are human, and the need for research funds can tempt those with less integrity to sensationalize their work a bit to enhance the apparent importance of their proposals. Unfortunately, the misrepresentation often does not stop there, because the scientist often also feels compelled to “shape” the results of the work to conform to the expectations of the proposal and/or the grantor of the funds. The end result can be scientific results tailor-made to perpetuate funding, rather than expand knowledge.
A final serious problem facing modern science is a large-scale abandonment of traditional standards and boundaries. Science training always included strong cautions against bias and prejudice. Scientists are people and, while they have their own beliefs and philosophies, they are supposed to set those ideas aside when conducting research. Although there have always been scientists who have let personal beliefs and agendas influence their work, never before have so many scientists happily abandoned even-handed research in favor of advocacy. Many of today’s scientists are proud advocates of a specific political or religious cause, and they unabashedly produce “science” that supports their positions. In the past, such biased results would be discredited by a preponderance of legitimate evidence from other scientists. However, when large numbers of scientists abandon even the appearance of an unbiased approach to research, science becomes nothing more than debate.
The dangers of such trends are two-fold. First, the search for knowledge suffers in the rush to justify personal beliefs, and the reputation and reliability of real science is diminished. While this may appear to be a temporary problem, a little history suggests otherwise. Science, when defined as consensus, as it was with the Greek philosophers, had little ability to correct itself, and false ideas had very long lives. For example, the respected philosopher Aristotle was largely wrong in his ideas about physical science. Yet, because he was so influential, the consensus he created for his ideas lasted for nearly two thousand years, until great scientists, such as Galileo, at great personal peril, finally brought a note of inquiry back into science.
A second danger of conducting science by consensus is the marginalization of new ideas. When dissenters to the prevailing dogma are ostracized, there is little incentive to be creative and thoughtful. Science tends to be reduced to battles of words between opposing camps, and personal vilification becomes more common than the comparison of data. It is difficult to point to a time when scientific issues were more clouded by hostility than they are today.
We need open, honest inquiry in order to progress in science, and we face some serious scientific issues. We may, indeed, face threat from man-made climate change. We may be harmed by gaseous pollutants that threaten the ozone layer. We may see diminished diversity caused by extinctions. We may be put at risk by pesticides and food additives. However, these are hardly settled issues, despite what people have been told, and the dangers they pose deserve honest investigation. One thing is certain however, the danger posed by new scientists is clear and present.