Zealots for ScienceBeing mindful of the extremes, science can remain a pursuit of reality.
Most of the people with whom I interact socially don't have a science background, and it's hard not to notice that the majority have a world-view rather at odds with mine. Up until now I have written this off as the gentle slide into grumpy old-manhood and tried to avoid thinking about it, but reading Lee Silver's feature on page 48 made me realize that it's more than that. Silver focuses on the widespread concept of Mother Nature as a benevolent super-system that nurtures and shelters all life forms. He points out the dangerous mindset that secretly takes root from this seemingly harmless belief: If Mother Nature is always good - attaching "good" and "bad" notions to it at all is symptomatic of the problem - then human interference is bad. And more subtly and as misguided, anything "natural" must be good. What I come up against are the practical spinoffs of this belief, among them a devotion to all things organic, an embracing of holistic therapies, and support for rights equal to those of humans for all animals. These ideas are invariably presented in an open, friendly, unthreatening way, and they have an immediate easygoing appeal that is lacking in the sterner, more rigid religions. There's an invented tradition, as well, to back up every belief so new recruits gain a sense of history and place as well as of well-being. But don't get the impression that these budding New Agers are a soft touch. There's a flinty core to this fluffy ball of spiritualism. While your spiritualist acquaintance is more than happy to hear about ecosystem research on the robustness of multicrop farming, mention equally well-established ideas about the advantages and safety of genetic modification and you will be met with disbelief. Describe the potential of genetically modified foods to secure the world's food supply and you'll be derided for being so easily fooled by corporations. The bottom line: If you buy into Mother Earth it's to the exclusion of other possibilities, there's no place for evidence, rationality, or skepticism. And that raises a big red flag. For example, with alternative medicines the problems are two-fold. One is that they aren't proven to be effective by rigorous scientific assessment, so while they may not be dangerous directly they could allow development of disease preventable by mainstream medicine. The other is that they are a drain on resources. A prime example is a recent press release I received describing "B17 metabolic therapy" for patients with ovarian cancer and calling for its introduction by the UK National Health Service. The regime includes "melatonin, shark cartilage, ozone therapy, and ultraviolet blood irradiation" as well as "injections of B17 every other day," and a "healthy vitamin-enriched organic diet." The Mother Earth sensibility is also behind the ever-more-aggressive movement to do away with animal experiments, and even with animal experimenters. One former hero of mine has said, "I understand why ... so-called laboratory scientists are repaid with violence. It is the only language they understand." For shame, Morrissey! My conclusion: The threat to science from what Silver calls the spiritual left may already have overtaken the threat from the religious right. Life scientists are quick to jump on maneuvers by the right to replace scientific ideas with religious ideas in teaching. Reaction is well coordinated (see the Notebook item on p. 19 for an example) and the arguments (e.g., against intelligent design) are compelling. Now it's time to apply our collective energy to counter the rise in mysticism and fall of skeptical inquiry. The first step: Find out how many in your circle of acquaintances, including your students, are already operating in this mindset. As a second step you could do worse than to proffer copies of Silver's book. Once the core weakness of the spiritual-left mindset is exposed, a more rational viewpoint might ensue. This affects us all: We need to be zealots in hunting out this contagious and pernicious viewpoint, labeling it as such, and addressing it wherever and whenever it is encountered.
Advertisement
Rate this article
Eternal vigilance required by Michael Buratovich [Comment posted 2006-07-20 21:19:28] No matter where the threat to science and science education comes - left or right, scientists need to be more circumspect about the implications of policies and influences. We cannot afford to stick our heads into our test tubes anymore without looking up occasionally.
It's been a case of misdirection all along. by David Bump [Comment posted 2006-07-11 11:00:20] There isn't any "threat from the religious right" to science which can be independently demonstrated and takes into consideration some basic ethics (the title of a recent Nature article put the term in scare quotes: "ethics"). Modern/Western science began as a rational extention of Christian "natural philosophy."
Some people found they could divorce the rational philosophy from its religious roots, and ever since then they've been hiding behind "Science" and yelling "Look out! The religious nuts are going to go Inquisition on us again!" Is it any wonder, then, that "another" threat has crept up from the other direction? And even now, the only conflict between "Science" and "the religious right" is in areas of philosophical interpretations of data; even in the area of "evolution" there is much material that even most fundamentalist creationists can agree with. One would hope we all share some concerns and advocate caution in areas such as preserving the bioshpere and ethical matters such as human cloning; while we may have differences in where we draw the lines, perhaps we should be looking at points of commonality as well as our disagreements. Well, by C.Felix Goos [Comment posted 2006-07-10 21:19:56] nature isn't 'good' for mankind, it wasn't made for us, but it has a lengthy and quite successful history, it produced us (was that its last major mistake?). Man has a tremendous amount of intelligence and thus power, but quite restricted a quantity on insight and (academically and economically and lifespanwise) very little incentive of (individually) applying what it (socially) gained as insight.
Regards C.Felix Goos Regional Toxicologist by Suzanne Wuerthele, Ph.D., D.A.B.T. [Comment posted 2006-07-10 20:16:03] As a toxicologist and scientific method enthusiast, I too am dismayed by the "anything natural must be good" philosophy. But there are pitfalls in blindly adopting the opposite extreme that "all technology must be good". It behooves us to anticipate the unintended consequences of technologies like nuclear power, industrial scale farming, genetic engineering and nanotechnology before they are adopted, as well as to understand who will bear those consequences and who will benefit. |
Register for FREE Online Access
Subscribe to the Magazine