Regarding "Junk Science"
and Other Detritus
From a Magazine Ad for the Union
of Concerned Scientists (c. 1997):
"Faced with (literally)
breathtaking amounts of evidence that smoking kills people,
cigarette makers and their slick lobbyists did more than just
ignore the facts. They invented a new branch of science: junk
science. They commissioned "research." They collected "data."
They reached "findings." Obfuscation of the highest order.
"Given Tobacco's success, no
wonder so many anti-environmentalists decided to major in junk
science. The coal industry has "data" showing the world's climate
won't change that much. Some Members of Congress showcase
scientists who tell us not to worry about that hole in the ozone
layer. And "experts" offer studies claiming that few species are
becoming extinct. But be warned.
"Junk science keeps us from
hearing the conclusions of mainstream scientists. Scientists who
understand that threats to the environment are real and require
real action...."
. . . And Speaking of
"Junk Science". . .
Back in February, 1997, we viewed (and
fortunately taped) a most amazing program on NBC-TV: "The Mysterious
Origins of Man," which was narrated by Charlton Heston (Ronald
Reagan, not being available). Here we learned that homo
sapiens was alive 200 million years ago, co-existed with the
dinosaurs (there are footprints in Texas to prove it!), that the
sphinx was built 25,000 years ago, and that (this is my favorite!)
the site of Atlantis is beneath a mile of ice in
Antarctica.
Antarctica?! How is that
possible, you ask? Well, you see, as we all know, the earth's outer
crust rests upon syrupy stuff call "the mantle." It so happens that
every 20,000 years or so, the polar ice caps get sufficiently heavy
to cause the crust to slide, like a big toboggan, some 2,000 miles or
so. Thus, not so long ago (geologically speaking), McMurdo Sound was
somewhere up around where Buenos Aires is today.
Amazing!
How strange that there is no fossil
evidence of these dramatic climate changes, elsewhere around the
globe. Well, maybe there is. As the "scientists" interviewed on the
program explained, their findings have been suppressed by a grand,
world-wide conspiracy of "establishment scientists," who are more
interested in defending their reputations and research grants, than
they are in facing up to the "evidence" offered by these maverick
truth-seekers.
Needless to say,
Science
Magazine (published by the American Association for the Advancement
of Science) takes a dim view of these shenanigans, noting, in a
recent article, that "scientists have tried without success to get a
response" to their complaints, from NBC. "When Science
contacted NBC Entertainment ... the division that aired the show, a
spokesperson said, 'we don't have a statement because to my
knowledge, there have been no complaints.'"
What We Don't
Know About Science Can Hurt Us!
Last spring (1996), the National
Science Foundation verified what we have long suspected: the American
public is dismally uninformed about basic science. On May 24, 1996,
the Duluth News Tribune carried an Associated Press story
reporting that "fewer than half of the American adults understand
that the Earth orbits the sun yearly... Only about nine percent knew
what a molecule was, and only 21 percent could define DNA.... In a
test of environmental understanding, a third of Americans surveyed
understood the effects of a thinning of the ozone layer, fourteen
percent could identify locations of ozone holes and only five percent
could give a scientific explanation of acid rain."
Here is the NSF quiz. Click on
this
hyperlink for the answers,
along with the percentages of correct answers in the
survey.
1. The center of the Earth is very
hot. (True or False)
2. The oxygen we breathe comes from
plants. (T/F)
3. Electrons are smaller than atoms.
(T/F)
4. The continents on which we live
have been moving their location for millions of years and will
continue to move in the future. (T/F)
5. Human beings as we know them today
developed from earlier species of animals. (T/F)
6. The earliest human beings lived at
the same time as the dinosaurs. (T/F)
7. Which travels faster: light or
sound?
8. How long does it take for the
Earth to go around the sun: A day, a month or a year?
9. In your own words, what is
DNA?
10. In your own words, what is a
molecule?
The March, 1997 issue of
Environment published
"Environmental Science Under Siege in the U. S. Congress," by the late George
E. Brown, Jr., formerly the ranking minority member of the House Committee on
Science. He writes that in the 104th Congress
" ... the House Committee on
Science ... actively [pursued] a legislative agenda
unprecedented in the degree of mistrust and hostility it showed
toward federal environmental research programs. The Fiscal Year
1996 Budget resolution, which passed the House of Representatives
in May 1995, recommended a 20 percent reduction in funding for
federal environmental research in fiscal year 1996 and a steep
decline in succeeding years... The committee also passed
legislation to restrict the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency's climate mission to the investigation of natural phenomena
as opposed to any human-influenced phenomena and to eliminate
NASA's environmental mission altogether. All of these actions
occurred prior to the subcommittee's series of hearings and
without any actual public testimony."
By politicizing science and science
policy, Brown argues, the Congress has
" ... created the impression
that science itself cannot be trusted for policy making. The
notion now persists that for any scientific issue there will
always be some scientists who are in agreement and some in
disagreement, as well as others who will invariably change their
minds. Ultimately, people feel that no reliable process exists to
resolve scientific differences of opinion with any degree of
integrity. This cynical view undermines science-based policy
making. It leads to the erroneous and potentially damaging idea
that institutions like Congress need to assume the responsibility
for defining what constitutes "sound science" and begin acting
like a science court."
The idea that politicians rather than
scientists should decide what constitutes "sound science" should
deeply disturb all those concerned with the integrity of the
scientific process.
A very disquieting article. Highly
recommended.
"Results from a poll of 2006 US
adults released last week by the National Science Foundation, found
that 72% believe that the benefits of research to society outweigh
the harmful effects. The survey also found that leaders in the
scientific community rank second only to physicians in public
esteem...
"[And yet] just over
one-fifth of Americans surveyed could adequately explain a scientific
experiment, while 64% have 'no understanding' of scientific
inquiry... Less than half knew that electrons are smaller than atoms,
that the universe began with a big explosion, or that antibiotics
kill bacteria but not viruses. And only 44% said that humans
developed from earlier species of animals. This skeptical attitude
toward evolution ... is unique among industrialized countries."
Andrew Lawler
Science, May 31, 1996
