Just Like Us

                                                                             

Have you ever heard of “Pure Science?” The term is intended to denote science that is aimed at discerning some basic Truth, something for which no practical end is envisioned, but which the scientist is obsessed with finding out anyway. Interestingly, it is the science that is pure, not the scientist.

The scientist is just another human being, like us. Fortunately, most of us are reasonably good people, and most scientists are good, and they picture themselves as good,ⁱ but it's not always the case. Even when it isn't, however, society has placed scientists on a pedestal and their work and their views are often regarded as bearing weight that may not be there. Their phlogiston is heavier than ours.

One of the evidences that their intellectual production is less than perfect is the fact that what is accepted by the rest of us on their say-so isn't always the case, and “facts” change. The earth is not the center of the universe; there is no such thing as a philosopher's stone; the atom can be subdivided; and there are numerous other examples. But that is why they do their work: to learn and, when necessary, to change our understanding of the world in which we live. It's a noble calling.

It's a calling, however, whose methods and results society may not understand. The media are quick to publish as established fact an unverified first report. It may make good press, but it's bad science. There is a well-established principle in scientific research that studies must be replicated and verified before their conclusions are accepted as fact. But for the media, such principles shouldn't stand in the way of a front-page story. If a retraction is ultimately necessary, it can be placed on an inside page – at the bottom – if it appears at all.

There are many who have a vested interest in glorifying scientific postulations: those who question organized religion. For them, Science is their religion,ⁱⁱ and scientists make up the pantheon: there is no G-d, there are only scientists. If it can't be proved and quantitated, it isn't true. Religion is irrational. For some though, believers, rationality is overrated. If there is a conflict between science and religion, science must give way. Others, however, perhaps the majority, either give no thought to any disagreement, or they find a way to rationalize it. They, too, attribute great wisdom to the words of scientists.

And that can be a problem. While it is likely that scientists a far more intelligent than the general population, they have flaws too. They sometimes promote fallacies. There are three categories of errors – those made inadvertently, those made for personal benefit, and those, unrelated to science, made outside of their field – possibly based on ideology.

People make mistakes. Everyone. In science, honest ones may be based on poor study design, lack of knowledge, inexpert technique, or lack of attention. Perhaps they are the product of random distribution or sampling error. Others result from outside pressures, like deadlines for publication or the desire to beat a competitor. Their work may generate mistaken conclusions. Often it is corrected, or it fails peer review. But often it gets through. In a proper setting, however, confirmatory studies will be attempted and the errors determined before there is general publicity and before the results become the basis for further work.

But there are occasions when a particular result is desired, or it magically coincides with preconceived notions about what the results will be. That may be in order to earn community acceptance, fameⁱⁱⁱ or tenure for the investigator or, if some commercial product is involved, it may be because of benefits provided by the firm that manufacturers the product being tested. Perhaps a drug is being tested and the research concerning it is needed for FDA approval – approval that will only be granted if the results indicate its value. It is possible that dinners, vacations, paid “consultations” or “lectureships” will participate in the evaluation of that research. Or it may be that there will be more negotiable benefits.^iv There are fences to guard against this kind of practice,^v but they're not universally effective since a family member or a friend may be named as the beneficiary. Work promoting an invention of the author, or his discovery, are more likely to be spotted.

But, though we usually credit most scientists with intelligence, there is a big difference between intelligence and wisdom. With a desire to promote a particular point of view, an “ax to grind,” the investigator may choose a particular field in which some project can be found that will support his position. Others, favoring some idea, will interpret data to prove it. If someone has strong convictions about a notion – political, religious, social, or otherwise – he may use science to promote it, even if he has to “cherry-pick” the studies he uses as evidence. “Junk science” is the result of many of these techniques.^vi Or, based on ideology, a scientist may venture outside of his field of expertise^vii because his fame will give wider publicity to the view he wants to express,^viii whether it involves an unrelated area of science, a social cause, or a political position. He may have a good deal of intelligence but be entirely devoid of wisdom.

My intent is not to minimize the contributions of science. It is merely to point out that scientists are not gods, but humans who work in the field of science. They have good rules though, and among them are: wait until an idea is confirmed several times before acting on it; don't stray from your area of expertise without help from someone in the new field and plenty of study; and don't mix science with anything else. From our point of view, the most important things we can do are to be sure that they follow their own rules, and to let them know when they don't.

Next episode: “The Lesser Of Two Evils” – On compromise.

i       Here I'm discussing character primarily (though not exclusively), however scientific knowledge and ability do play a part.

ii      That scientific “facts” may later be found to be wrong doesn't disprove their religion any more than a change in practice disproves another religion.

iii     Data were reported to have been falsified by an investigator who claimed that immunizations caused autism.

iv      Yes, sad to say. Bribery does occur.

v       The most frequent are the suspicious department head and Ethics Committee and the requirement for full disclosure of any relationship with the research's funding source.

vi      For example, both those who favor active steps to limit production of carbon dioxide with the view that this will be of significant benefit in the battle against global warming, and those who doubt that it will be of much help and that its costs will exceed its benefits, accuse their opponents of using junk science.

vii     Psychologists and those who study the brain and intelligence may claim that there is a genetic basis for intelligence, while other scientists, not in this field, may consider it a reactionary idea that there may be variation between men and women, and between the different races. All people are created equal – at least in terms of intellectual potential. If differences are found, those results are erroneous.

viii    And it's not just scientists who do this. An actor may, all of a sudden, become an expert on social policy, or an athlete on politics.