Worried

Michael - Thursday

I’m worried. I can hear Annamaria sighing in anticipation of another pessimistic rant. Actually, I’m worried about something that is more of a threat than a problem, and that shouldn’t be hard to fix (in principle).

I have to start off by stating categorically that

·         I am completely convinced that climate change is real, and that unless we take quite drastic action, it will lead over time to a planet much less favourable to human and most other animal life;

·         I am completely convinced about the efficacy of vaccines that have been developed by reputable drug companies and tested and approved by serious regulatory bodies like the FDA;

·         I am completely convinced that there is no difference on average between the human races – an ill-defined and possibly meaningless categorisation in any case – apart from completely trivial ones like skin colour.

What I’m worried about is that the people who don’t believe these things – of which there are many – are causing scientists working in these areas to veer away from investigating any aspects of these premises that might give the doubters comfort. Worse, there is peer pressure to not research such topics at all or at least to obscure the results from public view. This is not an atmosphere in which good science can be pursued.

The history of science is full of breakthroughs where individuals – Galileo, Newton, Einstein – came up with ideas that were contrary to the orthodoxy of the time, but were later shown to be much closer approximations to reality than what had gone before. Perhaps unfortunately, nowadays most scientific breakthroughs involve teams and serious funding. The gentlemen mentioned above probably wouldn’t have received that sort of support for their way-out ideas.

David Reich is a respected professor of genetics at Harvard. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times that you can read here, he raises the issue of research into genetic differences between races. He starts by pointing out that since the seventies it’s been known that most of the genetic differences (85% in the case of blood proteins, for example) are explained by variation within the population groups and very little is explained by so-called race. Reich also points out that the genetic differences between men and women are huge and way more than any within sex differences across any human population group you care to choose. His point is that geneticists shouldn’t veer away from studying the differences because they may be helpful in determining, for example, genetic traits related to diseases, and he cites important work of his own. The concern is, as he puts it:

“I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as 'scientific proof' that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.”

He goes on to suggest that scientists don’t like to even discuss genetic connections between behaviour and cognition. But by avoiding the research or the discussion of the outcomes in the public domain, they leave the floor open to people – some of whom are sufficiently knowledgeable to make convincing arguments – to claim that such research points to racial stereotypes. That’s the last thing any of us want.

In another article, which you can read here, Melinda Moyer, a science and health writer and contributing editor at Scientific American, explains how the anti-vaccine activists are cramping research in the area. The reason is that scientists in the area are now scared of any research or findings which might tend to support extreme views that vaccines are dangerous. She mentions one researcher who published a paper which indicated that the flu vaccine methodology of the day saved less elderly lives than one might expect. Although the research eventually was instrumental in the development of a better vaccine for seniors, the author was ostracised for many years and accused of aiding the anti-vaccine lobby.

The same sort of pressure is brought to bear on climatologists. Any study suggesting that the problem may not be as severe as thought is immediately pounced on by the denialists and treated with distain by the main stream science community. This is not helpful because the denialists can twist things to suit themselves and claim that it proves the complicity of the 'climate change clique'.

I think these three areas illustrate the problems that arise when scientists are unwilling to be out of step with a community defending itself from ill-informed, but powerful, attack. It’s not the right reaction. By using the scientific approach to investigate all sides of an issue, the expert community becomes more robust and is protected from accusations of bias.

To make real progress one has to ask inconvenient questions and consider the reality of unwelcome answers if you get them. As Dr Edward Belongia, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology, told Milinda Moyer, “If we get to the point where we don’t want to look anymore because we don’t want to know the answer, then we’re in trouble.”