by Kitty Testa
All around the world today people are gathering to March for Science. The march was organized to counter a perceived global rejection of science, and as the organizers proclaim, “The March for Science is the first step of a global movement to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments.”
Now I love science. I aced my college science classes. I took evolution. I used to belong to the local astronomical society. I’ve read A Brief History of Time AND Time in a Nutshell. I know a ridiculous amount about the Space Race, and am fascinated by the lives of the great scientists of the past and the inspiration of their discoveries. I am a science enthusiast who loves technology and is enthralled by the creative destruction it brings. I am not anti-science.
But I am wary of the goals of The March for Science. I agree that science plays a vital role in our world, but science should never be used as a tool to suppress individual freedom, and sadly, that has happened all too often over the last several decades.
Today’s scientific experts are too quick to label anyone who questions their conclusions as a wacko, a luddite or an ignoramus. Dismissing questions is inherently anti-science, which should always retain skepticism for its own sake. Science is not about settled questions, but rather a continuous search for the truth. Should new information turn an accepted truth on its head, so be it.
In a world where science has become politicized, the lofty purveyors of scientific fact want compliance, not questions. There is a host of matters on which they want us to just shut up and listen when they say, “Trust me. I’m an expert.” Here are five of them.
1. Vaccines
My opposition to forced vaccinations is based on my strongly held belief in personal freedom, so that’s not a science question. Some claim that vaccinations cause autism, and the science community emphatically states that there is no statistical evidence to support that. Well statistics are great until you’re a statistic. Given the myriad of side-effects and adverse reactions to vaccines, from fevers to seizures to the occasional neurological malfunction, it is only natural that people have questions. Is the danger in the active ingredient or the delivery system? Do we have to give so many vaccines so soon in an infant’s life? Must we give them in loaded vaccine cocktails for numerous diseases at once? These are all good science questions, but the goal of the experts is herd immunity, and the individual be damned. I am hopeful that the experts will someday take these questions seriously and make vaccines that are safer, but they won’t do that unless the questions persist.
2. GMOs
The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture promised to increase yields and decrease the need for pesticides. Unfortunately those promises are yet to be fulfilled. Many have questioned whether GMOs are safe to eat, citing the rise in food allergies since the mid-1990s when GMOs were introduced. Others are concerned about GMOs displacing natural varieties of crops and contamination of local agriculture which can actually result in family farmers being sued if their harvest accidentally includes the patented life forms. Others still question our dependence upon GMOs in the food supply should nature itself develop a disease for which they have no resistance. The scientific community has vigorously denied that GMOs are dangerous, yet still nineteen European countries have banned GMOs, an action which the New York Times called “the coalition of the ignorant.”
Given the fact that GMOs have not lived up to their promise of higher yields and decreased pesticide use, is it really anti-science to not use them?
3. Mammograms
If you’re a woman over forty, be prepared for a fight with your physician when you tell him you refuse to get a mammogram. You will be called hysterical. You will be called superstitious. You will be called anti-science, even when you provide statistics showing numerous false positives and the dangers of radiation.
4. Cholesterol
If you’re interested in learning more about the cholesterol myth and how it became intertwined with public policy, I recommend a documentary called Fathead. The filmmaker, Tom Naughton, produced the documentary as a response to the wildly popular Morgan Spurlock documentary, Supersize Me, which served as a full-metal-jacket indictment of the fast food industry and its harmful effect on our collective health. Cholesterol is the boogey man of modern medicine. The lipid hypothesis is widely accepted among medical researchers and physicians, but it’s based on the bad science of selective data selection and unfounded conclusions. Despite the fact that recent, more rigorous studies contradict the lipid hypothesis, the Centers for Disease Control doesn’t think that 13 million Americans taking statins to lower their cholesterol is enough; the government agency thinks it should be twice that.
5. Global Warming
Global Warming is the hot button issue of our time, and I infer from the fact that The March for Science is taking place on Earth Day that the organizers’ main concern are evil climate deniers. If saying “global warming” sounds passé, it’s because after we experienced a cessation of actual global warming the nomenclature was updated to “Climate Change.” Well, no shit, Sherlock! The earth’s climate has been changing since the dawn of time. Hey, I learned that in Geology 101!
You must realize that in order to be fully vetted by the Climate Change crowd, you must accept all of their conclusions without question, as well as all of their policy goals to purportedly save the planet from pesky human industry. Many of the so-called climate deniers are simply asking good science questions: Is there a mathematical relationship between carbon emissions and temperature rise? Have you controlled for other factors, such as sunspot activity, that might indicate a non-causal correlation (if there is one)? Scientists have made many dire predictions, none of which have come true. Why is that? Given the protracted nature of geological time, and the many climate changes that have taken place over millennia and eons, how can you be so sure that the warming is the result of human actions?
These aren’t silly questions, yet despite the revelations of data manipulation and questionable surface temperature readings, the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd will just call you stupid and anti-science if you question anything at all.
Science does play a vital role in our world. And bad science leads to bad policy. I believe this March for Science is for all intents and purposes a march for policy changes, many of which may be harmful to freedom and economic progress. Scientists are people like everyone else, people with biases, agendas and political goals. While they may be experts, they also have feet of clay.
My only comfort is that scientific method is reliant upon the skeptic, and thus self-correcting over time. I trust that it will continue its search for the truth, which is perpetually on the event horizon.