Politics and Science
Published in the Observer 3/24/2010
Throughout history major corporations, governments, and philanthropists have played a role in funding scientific research. Funding is required to pay salaries, buy materials, and ultimately sustain research; therefore it is reasonable to expect the funding of research to be driven by self-interest. My favorite example would be the story of Archimedes discovering the concept of density to confirm King Hiero had been swindled in making his gold crown. The outcome of his research confirmed King Hiero’s concerns, and history benefitted from the discovery of the principle of density. We should be concerned when subjectivity in science overrules objectivity. The scientific method clearly outlines the objective process for creating a hypothesis, testing, analyzing data, and making valid conclusions.
I worked as an engineer, have a minor in mathematics, and am an expert in statistics, thus I believe I am well qualified to look at a set of data and make conclusions using experience and knowledge. However, I am not an expert in every field, nor is anyone. Therefore, I trust scientists to objectively examine data and come to valid conclusions. Under review, publishing, a peer process exists to monitor the scientific community. However, concern arises when this process is called into question and therefore raises doubts about conclusions and recommendations. If the conclusions are used to effect public policy the method and authorities providing the information must be trustworthy and verifiable. This past winter two issues have made the headlines illustrating my concern over politics and science.
In December there was much ado regarding the Copenhagen meetings on climate change. Although no agreement was reached, world leaders continue to create new policies to limit carbon emissions. “Global Warming” as promoted by Al Gore has always been called into question by big business. Personally, I am open to the subject of “Climate Change”, but feel man’s influence is insignificant when compared to Earth’s Eonic existence. The scandal surrounding the global warming science forces wonder whether in this case, science was created to promote a certain agenda, manipulate data, squash contradictory views, and intimidate critics. Many have argued to require more analysis of the climate change data because there are so many variables in play to tax an entire population for a normally occurring climate trend would make no sense.
In the second case, announcements were made to change the recommended mammogram screening guidelines for women. Initially these guidelines were established to ensure early detection of breast cancer. However, the recommendation came to wait longer before beginning screenings and to lessen the frequency of screenings. Many women were outraged and examples came forth where saved lives could only be attributed to early screenings under the former guidelines. The science behind the guideline recommendations may not have been scrutinized in such detail though if public debate over health care, threats of rationing, and cutbacks in services were not in the political forefront. Thus, regardless of the possible validity of the change in recommendations to eliminate unnecessary screenings, they are tainted by politics.
We have all joked regarding a medical recommendation made one year and then overturned several years later due to new findings. It is critical that we trust scientists to maintain the ethical line between politics and science, regardless of their desire to promote a personal agenda. The scientific process is the essential first step in maintaining trust between the public and policy based on science.
Recent Comments