n science, as in much of life, it is believed that you get what you pay for. According to opinion polls, people do not trust scientists who work for industry because they only care about profits, or government scientists because they suspect them of trying to cover up the truth. Scientists who work for environmental NGOs are more highly regarded. Because they are trying to save the planet, people are ready to believe that what they say must be true. A House of Lords report, Science and Society, published in 2000, agreed that motives matter. It argued that science and scientists are not value-free, and therefore that scientists would command more trust "if they openly declare the values that underpin their work".
It all sounds very plausible, but mostly it is wrong. Scientists with the best of motives can produce bad science, just as scientists whose motives may be considered suspect can produce good science. An obvious example of the first was Rachel Carson, who, if not the patron saint, was at least the founding mother of modern environmentalism. Her book The Silent Spring was an inspiring account of the damage caused to our natural environment by the reckless spraying of pesticides, especially DDT.
However, Carson also claimed that DDT caused cancer and liver damage, claims for which there is no evidence but which led to an effective worldwide ban on the use of DDT that is proving disastrous. Her motives were pure; the science was wrong. DDT is the most effective agent ever invented for preventing insect-borne disease, which, according to the US National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, prevented over 50 million human deaths from malaria in about two decades. Although there is no evidence that DDT harms human health, some NGOs still demand a worldwide ban for that reason. Careless science cost lives.
{..}
Motives are not irrelevant, and unselfish motives are rightly admired more than selfish ones. There are numerous examples of misconduct by big companies, and we should examine their claims critically and provide effective regulation to control abuses of power and ensure the safety of their products. Equally, we should not uncritically accept the claims of those who act from idealistic motives. NGOs inspired by the noble cause of protecting our environment often become careless about evidence and exaggerate risks to attract attention (and funds). Although every leading scientific academy has concluded that GM crops are at least as safe as conventional foods, this does not stop Greenpeace reiterating claims about the dangers of "Frankenfoods". Stephen Schneider, a climatologist, publicly justified distortion of evidence: "Because we are not just scientists but human beings as well ... we need to ... capture the public imagination ...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have."http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1417388,00.htmlWRT the DDT ban, I suspect racism played a major role. Malaria is only a real threat to black and brown people in the developing world. I doubt the ban would have had much support if white Californians were getting malaria in numbers that black Africans are.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(565 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
