How Far Can You Trust Science?

BY AWAKE! CORRESPONDENT IN AUSTRALIA

MOST people really admire science, in view of its many accomplishments in medicine, engineering, communication, and other disciplines. Scientific discoveries have touched the lives of almost all people living today. Many scientists have devoted their entire lives to the cause of science, and honest scientific endeavors aimed at improving the quality of life should be applauded. In fact, author Tony Morton goes so far as to say that “science is undoubtedly one of the mainstays of modern civilisation.”

But in all areas of life, there is need for balance in assessing true worth, and the field of science is no exception. To help us keep such a balanced view, let us consider the words of another writer, one who is not so complimentary about the role that science plays in our lives. Lewis Wolpert, in his book The Unnatural Nature of Science, writes: “Surveys confirm that there is much interest in, and admiration for, science, coupled with an unrealistic belief that it can cure all problems; but there is also, for some, a deep-seated fear and hostility . . . The practitioners of science are seen as cold, anonymous and uncaring technicians.”

The Rise of Science

There is always an element of risk when scientific experiments involve breaking new ground. But as new discoveries prove the risk worthwhile, public confidence in science rises. To some extent, science, basking in the glory of past successes, has taken more and more daring risks, and many people in their awe and enthusiasm have come to view science as the panacea for mankind’s ills. The result is that many people associate the words “science” and “scientific” with absolute truth.

The publication American Studies makes the observation: “Beginning in the 1920s, and increasingly in the 1930s, the scientist in white lab coat provided objective assurance to consumers that one product was ‘scientifically’ superior to its competitors. A 1928 Nation editorial lamented that ‘a sentence that begins with “Science says” will generally be found to settle any argument in a social gathering, or sell any article from toothpaste to refrigerators.’”

But is science necessarily always synonymous with absolute truth? Down through history scientific discoveries have had their vigorous opponents. Some of the objections raised were unfounded; others seemed to have a good basis. Galileo’s discoveries, for example, raised the ire of the Catholic Church. And scientific theories on the origins of man drew hostile reactions on both scientific and Biblical grounds. So it comes as no surprise that each new scientific discovery attracts adherents and opponents.

An old Latin proverb says: “Science [or, knowledge] has no enemy but the ignorant.” This is no longer true, however, for science is under siege today as never before—and not by the ignorant. It now seems that though once considered unassailable by many, science is now beleaguered by some of its onetime supporters. A growing number of its followers could be said to have become its judge, jury, and executioner. The great temples of scientific learning are now often arenas of conflict. One reason for its woes is that past deceit and corruption by some scientific academics has now come to light.

Thus, the question is being asked more frequently than ever before, Can all science really be trusted? The following article outlines some of the reasons why increasing numbers of people are raising this question.

Scientists Divided?

“ALTHOUGH we should not discard the notion that science is a quest for truth about the world, we should take heed of the psychological and social factors which often oppose this quest.” So wrote Tony Morton in a paper entitled “Schools in Conflict: The Motives and Methods of Scientists.” Yes, it seems that fame, financial gain, or even political leanings have sometimes influenced scientists’ findings.

As far back as 1873, Lord Jessel expressed concern about such influences in court cases when he said: “Expert evidence . . . is evidence of persons who sometimes live by their business, but in all cases are remunerated for their evidence. . . . Now it is natural that his mind, however honest he may be, should be biased in favour of the person employing him, and accordingly we do find such bias.”

Take forensic science, for example. A court of appeal made the point that forensic scientists may become partisan. The journal Search notes: “The very fact that the police seek their assistance may create a relationship between the police and the forensic scientists. . . . Forensic scientists employed by the government may come to see their function as helping the police.” This journal also gives the example of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombing cases of Maguire (1989) and Ward (1974) in Britain as bearing “eloquent testimony to the preparedness of some highly experienced and otherwise reputable scientists to abandon scientific neutrality and view their responsibilities as helping the prosecution.”

Another outstanding example is the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia (1981-82), which became the basis for the film A Cry in the Dark. Evidence submitted by forensic experts apparently swayed judgment against Mrs. Chamberlain, accused of murdering her baby Azaria. Although she claimed that a dingo (wild dog) had killed the child, she was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, when the baby’s dirty, bloodied jacket was found, the previous evidence did not stand up under close scrutiny. As a result, Lindy was released from prison, her conviction was quashed, and compensation was paid for wrongful conviction.

When scientist argues against scientist, the controversy can become bitter. Some decades ago Dr. William McBride’s challenge to the manufacturers of the drug thalidomide made world news. When he suggested that this drug, marketed to relieve morning sickness in pregnancy, caused severe deformities in unborn children, this doctor became a hero overnight. Yet, years later, while he was working on another project, a doctor turned journalist accused him of altering data. McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud and of professional misconduct. He was struck off the medical register in Australia.

Scientific Controversies

A current controversy is whether or not electromagnetic fields are harmful to human and animal health. Some evidence suggests that there is extensive pollution of our environment by electromagnetism, whose sources range all the way from high voltage power lines to the personal computer and the microwave oven in your home. Some even claim that over a period of years, cellular telephones can damage your brain. Still others point to scientific studies that suggest that electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer and death. As an example of this, the newspaper The Australian reports: “A British electricity authority is being sued over the death of a boy who allegedly developed cancer as he slept near high-voltage power cables.” A Melbourne occupational medicine consultant, Dr. Bruce Hocking, found that “children living within about four kilometres of Sydney’s main television towers had more than twice the rate of leukaemia than children living outside the four-kilometre radius.”

While environmentalists champion such claims, big business and commercial interests stand to lose billions of dollars from what they term “unnecessary scare campaigns.” So they mount counterattacks and receive support from other sectors of the scientific community.

Then there is the controversy over chemical pollution. Some have described dioxin as “the most toxic chemical created by man.” This chemical, described by Michael Fumento as “merely an unavoidable by-product in the manufacture of certain herbicides” (Science Under Siege), was called by some “the key ingredient in Agent Orange.”a It reached its publicity peak following the Vietnam war. Major legal battles ensued between war veterans and chemical companies, each group with its own conflicting scientific experts.

Similarly, environmental issues such as global warming, the greenhouse effect, and depletion of the ozone layer are receiving much public attention. Concerning environmental fears for Antarctica, The Canberra Times newspaper reports: “Research by scientists at Palmer Station, a United States scientific base on Anvers Island, shows high ultraviolet radiation damages lower forms of life such as plankton and molluscs and could start working its way up the food chain.” But many other scientific studies seem to counter such an opinion and to dispel fears about ozone depletion and global warming.

So who is right? It seems that every claim or argument can be proved or disproved by scientific experts. “Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone,” states the book Paradigms Lost. Michael Fumento sums up the matter of dioxin by saying: “We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.”

Yet, some well-known scientific disasters cannot be explained away. Science must account for these.

“A Tragedy of Overwhelming Poignancy”

In “A Message to Intellectuals,” released on August 29, 1948, Albert Einstein reflected on the less glamorous moments of science when he stated: “By painful experience we have learnt that rational thinking does not suffice to solve the problems of our social life. Penetrating research and keen scientific work have often had tragic implications for mankind, . . . creating the means for his own mass destruction. This, indeed, is a tragedy of overwhelming poignancy!”

A recent Associated Press release read: “Britain Admits Testing Radiation on Humans.” The British Ministry of Defence confirmed that the government had carried out human radiation experiments for nearly 40 years. One of these experiments involved the testing of an atom bomb at Maralinga, South Australia, in the mid-1950’s.

Maralinga is a name derived from an Aboriginal word meaning “thunder,” and this isolated area provided the perfect place for Britain to carry out its scientific experiments. After the first blast, the euphoria of success was in the air. One Melbourne newspaper report read: “As the [radioactive] cloud faded, convoys of trucks and jeeps brought the British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand servicemen who’d faced the blast in dugouts just five miles from the explosion point. And every face wore a smile. They could have been coming back from a picnic.”

The science correspondent for the British Daily Express newspaper, Chapman Pincher, even composed a song entitled “Pining for the Mushroom Cloud.” Add to that the assurance of a government minister who said that the test had gone completely according to plan and that there would be no radiation hazard to anyone in Australia. Years later, however, the smiles were wiped off the faces of those dying from radiation exposure, and an avalanche of compensation claims followed. No “Pining for the Mushroom Cloud” now! Maralinga is still a restricted area as a result of radiation pollution.

The United States’ experience with atom bomb tests in Nevada seems to be much the same. Some feel that what is involved is a political issue and not a scientific blunder. Atomic scientist Edward Teller said: “It is not the scientist’s responsibility to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be used. That responsibility rests with the American people and their chosen representatives.”

A Tragedy of Another Kind

The use of blood in medicine became standard practice after World War II. Science hailed it as a lifesaver and declared its use safe. But the advent of AIDS jolted the world of medicine out of its complacency. Suddenly, the supposedly lifesaving fluid turned into a killer for some. An administrator of a major Sydney, Australia, hospital told Awake!: “For decades we have transfused a substance we knew little about. We did not even know some of the diseases it carried. What else we are transfusing, we still do not know because we cannot test for something we don’t know.”

A particularly tragic case involved use of a growth hormone in the treatment of infertile women. Looking for greater fulfillment in life by having a baby, these women saw this treatment as a boon. Years later, some of them mysteriously died from the brain degenerative Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Children who were treated for stunted growth with the same hormone began to die. Researchers discovered that scientists had harvested the hormone from the pituitary glands of dead humans. Some of the cadavers had apparently carried the CJD virus, and batches of the hormone became contaminated. Even more tragic is the fact that some of the women treated with the hormone became blood donors before symptoms of CJD showed up. There are fears that the virus may now be in blood supplies, for there is no possible way to test for it.

All science involves some risk taking. It is little wonder then that, as the book The Unnatural Nature of Science states, science “is viewed with a mixture of admiration and fear, hope and despair, seen both as the source of many of the ills of modern industrial society and as the source from which cures for these ills will come.”

But how can we minimize personal risk? How can we keep a balanced view of science? The next article should prove helpful.

When Science Speaks—How Do You Listen?

NEW diseases as well as reemerging old ones are a challenge to science. People desperate for a cure listen when science speaks. Fear of dying makes many eager to try the latest miracle drug, and often there is little thought of long-term consequences.

In many instances science has helped sufferers to enjoy a better quality of life. Outstanding are surgical procedures that eliminate the use of blood transfusions, which are risky. Science and technology have given mankind the power to do things that stagger the imagination. What was once science fiction is now everyday reality. Yet, not all science is altruistic, driven by humanity’s desperate needs.

Who Is Speaking?

Much of science is dollar-driven and supported by powerful lobbies, as noted earlier. Therefore, before drawing conclusions or getting excited about some new scientific discovery, ask yourself, ‘Who is really speaking?’ Learn to recognize the hidden agendas. It is no secret that the news media thrive on sensationalism. Some of the press will stop short of nothing to sell their newspapers. And even some more respectable journals allow a degree of sensationalism at times.

It often happens that science and the news media experience a love-hate relationship. The media can make science look good, but, on the other hand, “often scientists try to control press coverage by refusing interviews unless they can review and correct the copy prior to publication. Reporters, fearing censorship by vested interests, are usually reluctant to show their articles to sources, though they often confirm the accuracy of details with them.” So writes Dorothy Nelkin, in her book Selling Science.

She then cites examples to prove her point: “Press reports about new scientific advances tend to raise the hopes of desperate people. . . . Patients come to their doctors’ offices brandishing the latest copy [of a popular magazine] and demanding the latest cure.” Then, there is the example, quoted by Dorothy Nelkin, of a reporter who asked the chairman of the International Task Force on World Health and Manpower “whether he thought witch doctors can effectively administer medication in Africa.” He replied that they “probably could because of their high credibility in the population.” But what of the news headline the following day? It read: “U.N. Expert Calls for More Witch Doctors”!

Unfortunately, it seems that a modern trend is for more and more people to rely on newspapers and magazines to inform them about current science, says Nelkin. And for many, who are less willing or perhaps less able to read, television becomes the main source of information.

Keeping a Balanced View of Science

Notwithstanding triumphs of science that benefit humanity, we must bear in mind that scientists are only human. They are not beyond temptation and corruption. Their motives are not always noble. Truly, science has its proper place in society, but it is not an infallible guiding light in an ever-darkening world.

The journal Speculations in Science and Technology observes: “The history of science shows that however majestic the leaders of science . . . appear, they are still fallible.” Actually, some are more than fallible.

For the reasons given in these articles, it would be unwise for Christians to get involved in scientific controversies or to promote unproven scientific theories. For example, some may become obsessed with fear of electromagnetism. Then, with the best of intentions, they could begin to encourage others to dispose of their microwave ovens, electric blankets, and the like. Of course, everyone is free to make a choice, without criticism from others. But those who choose a different option should be able to expect the same consideration. So, it is wise to avoid spreading sensationalism. Whether many unusual claims are true or not has yet to be proved. If some of these claims eventually prove unfounded or even wrong, then those championing such claims not only look foolish but may have unintentionally caused harm to others.

Need for Prudence

How should a Christian react to scientific reports sensationalized in the media? First, examine the bias. What is the motive for the article or news item? Second, read the entire article. The sensational headline may not match details in the article itself. Third, and most important, check the track record of those speaking. Do they speak the truth? Do they have a hidden agenda?—Romans 3:4.

It can be said that if scientists are viewed with skepticism by some, the situation is of their own making. The credibility of some scientists as neutral seekers of truth has become badly tarnished. Science has opened up exciting vistas of knowledge of our world and the universe. However, some predictions of a better new world based on science inspire fear and concern rather than hope.

Some experts are sounding ominous warnings about possible future disasters. Nobel Peace Prize winner British physicist Joseph Rotblat expressed his concerns this way: “My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there.” Australian National University Professor Ben Selinger spoke of the problems he can foresee: “In my view, the next crisis is most likely to happen in the area of genetic engineering, but I don’t know what, or how, or when.”

On the other hand, the Bible, the Word of God, is a sure and reliable ‘light to our roadway’ to a secure future of peace, good health, and world unity, on a cleansed earth under the rule of God’s Kingdom.—Psalm 119:105; Revelation 11:18; 21:1-4.