Sociologists from four major research institutions have published a study in the journal Sociological Inquiry examining how we support our false beliefs. They examined the false belief of many voters during the 2004 general election, which held that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was responsible for the primarily Saudi-conducted attacks on September 11, 2001.
The researchers concluded that the false beliefs were not caused by lies told repeatedly by the Bush Administration and some cable news channels, but by the individuals’ own personal need to justify a war that was already being waged. They named their study “There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification,” and claim that their findings offer serious challenge to democracy – in that the people cannot be trusted to discern truth from falsehood.
Now, while it is a trivial observation that people tend to believe what they want to believe, and that they will seek out information sources that support and/or confirm their already-held beliefs, this blogger is not convinced that these sociologists should have so pointedly ignored the fact that it was the Bush-Cheney administration that invented the lies, started the war, and was backed up in that false propaganda effort by the mainstream broadcast and cable news media establishments. Seems like giving political liars and media propagandists a free pass on misleading the public does serious damage to the conclusions of the supposedly scientific study itself.
The teabaggers who scream at congressional town hall meetings that they want the government to stay out of their Medicare did not decide on their own to believe Medicare isn’t socialized government health insurance. They have been repeatedly TOLD that by liars. They are obviously less intelligent than most people and have already demonstrated with other false political and/or religious beliefs that they are vulnerable to the propaganda aimed at them. Yet in the sociopolitical reality of the world’s oldest democracy, this unfortunate minority of intellectually challenged citizens would not be a big concern for the way government runs or what government can do.
By blaming the unfortunate individuals rather than the professional liars, propagandists and the vast corporate wealth behind them, this sort of “research” looks to be just another aspect of the Lie Machine instead of serious professional quality research from public universities. Even worse, the researchers interviewed their subjects well after those subjects had formed their opinion and invested emotion in the correctness of their opinions. They did not examine the actual sources of those opinions at all, even though they are voluminously documented historical record. Quite strange.
Perhaps a more worthwhile publicly supported sociological research project would have examined the lies, false statements, intelligence cooking, blatant propaganda, outright treason, and even the use of torture to force false confessions to support the fraudulent link in the push toward war in Iraq. THEN maybe examine the effect of all this high-level criminality on the least intelligent members of the voting body politic – to reach pertinent conclusions about the harmful effects of institutional and corporate political propaganda on the conduct of democratic government.
The team at ScienceDebate2008 reports that this cycle’s Presidential candidates have declined to engage in a debate on science policy issues on April 18th in Philadelphia. While not surprising – these are professional politicians trying to sell themselves to a largely science-illiterate public – the importance of staging such a debate with national media coverage has not diminished in the least.
The next target will focus on the Oregon primary venue in May. For the effort ScienceDebate2008 has forged a working relationship with PBS’s NOVA science series and NOW on PBS weekly news program for cosponsorship. NOW host David Brancaccio will moderate, supported by a panel of internationally recognized scientists everyone can agree upon. Three possible dates have been proposed to the campaigns.
Because science is so important to our society and to the livability of our abused planet, it is hoped that the candidates will agree to debate the science issues on one of the possible dates. Again, due to personal ignorance of many of the issues, each candidate should be allowed to bring their primary on-staff science advisor and be able to consult that advisor about details. Simply reading position statements drafted by their campaigns should not be considered sufficient grasp of the issues for the next leader of the free world.
If you would support the effort you can contact the candidates’ campaigns in favor of the initiative. Letters to the editor of local and regional newspapers can also help drum up public interest. And you can contact the debate team from the initiative’s website at ScienceDebate2008.
I have discussed previously some of the issues with science press reporting that often seem designed to confuse the science laity (non-specialists in a given field) as well as the general public (non-scientists). Not that there aren’t many topics under the ‘Science’ header that are difficult to present in an easily understood format, or that there aren’t topics that harbor a good deal of conflicting ideas within science itself.
But since this blog is an attempt to present science news in an understandable way to the general public, now is a good time to revisit the issue of confusing science reporting, because a seriously confusing science news article has hit the reporting sources and engendered some confused arguments on both sides of an in-house controversy about evolution.
In my September ’07 post Who’s Responsible for Irresponsible Science News? the subject was conflicting accounts about foods, drugs and treatments that are good for us one day, deadly the next. I linked Matthew Nisbet’s blog Framing Science and his take on an article in the New York Times on the subject of bad communication of science and how to judge the motivations of those writing the reports.
The story this week is about a multi-national research project examining the development of roundworm vulvas in light of the “astonishing amount of developmental variation” and evolutionary changes present in the ~50 species of roundworm examined. The original research was reported in ScienceDaily back in November of ’07 in the release, Evolution is Deterministic, Not Random. It was reported that given the amount of variation, researchers had predicted it should have arisen through random mechanisms and ‘genetic drift’. Yet upon closer examination, the development all ended with the basic roundworm vulva with very little variation.
On Sunday, January 20, another report about this same research was published in ScienceDaily (from a press release issued by The American Technion Society), entitled New Findings Confirm Darwin’s Theory: Evolution Not Random (no longer available). If you – as a member of the interested, not entirely ignorant but not professional biologist “public” – are not yet confused, you soon will be…
There have been two “Darwinian” theories of evolution, and today’s amalgam – which includes evo-devo, HGT and other recently examined mechanisms Darwin knew nothing about – is usually referred to as “Modern Evolutionary Theory.” The headline on the Jan. 20th article suggests that Charles Darwin’s ‘Theory’ maintained that evolution isn’t random, and that itself can be confusing. Natural Selection, as in the original “evolution by natural selection,” is a deterministic mechanism. That which does not serve survival and successful reproduction is “selected out” of the gene pool, while successful mutations lead to organismal adaptation and fitness. The ‘random’ aspect to all this being mutation of DNA, which is said to be “random with regard to fitness.”
It is nearly impossible from reading the press stories to determine exactly what mechanisms of evolution have been confirmed or disconfirmed by this research. There is mention of “an opposing theory” that goes unnamed, which one may suppose is the random mutation aspect. Yet an “astonishing amount” of variation was noted by the researchers! Apparently, none of it changed the outcome, and THAT is what confirmed that evolution isn’t random despite random mutations leading to various developmental pathways, etc.
The pro-evolution (pro-Neodarwinism) website Panda’s Thumb noted the situation with this research and its reporting in a thread entitled With friends like these…. These scientists recognize the confusion sown by the press, and bemoan the difficulty of educating the interested public about science if the science is presented in ways that not even scientists can understand!
The original research is available from the journal Current Biology at Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development. For those who can follow the actual science, it may help to clear up confusion. The Public Library of Science [Biology] is doing an admirable job of getting real science news and synopses to the interested public too, but you have to wade through a lot of jargon that is itself confusing to the non-professional.
For those who would like to follow up on this latest science news confusion, check out some of these links and those below, see if you can parse the actual meaning and intent of the researchers toward a better understanding of evolution, and pinpoint the source of confusion in the general public, all of whom had to pass a biology course on evolution in order to graduate high school (and have been getting such courses for the past 20 years as elective for at least 40 years). Should those interested not be able to understand research and developments in the field which confirm or falsify the theory(ies) they learned? Who benefits from public confusion about issues in evolution?
Sigh. This situation is really quite absurd. Stay tuned, we’ll see if things ever get better while evolutionary biologists duke it out over just how random or directed evolution might be, and who wins the contest.
NOTE: It would seem that in view of the confusions sown, ScienceDaily has removed the January 20th article from its archive. We’ll see if they attempt to get clarification to re-publish a more informative and less confusing update!
Links:
PLoS: Recognizing Student Misconceptions through Ed’s Tools and the Biology Concept Inventory
PLoS: The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Current Biology: Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development
Findings Confirm Darwin’s Theory: Evolution Not Random [American Technion Society]
Evolution is Deterministic, Not Random
Panda’s Thumb: With friends like these…
They’re calling it Science Debate 2008. It’s a grassroots initiative to petition for a Presidential candidates forum specifically about issues of science and technology. The list of science bloggers in the Blogger Coalition is impressive, and represents almost all of Seed Media Group’s ScienceBlogs stable. The list of initial signers includes Nobel Prize laureates, academics, corporate CEOs, congresscritters, political science policy advisors, journal editors and regulatory agency veterans.
I heard about the initiative from Steven “DarkSyde” Andrew’s front page post announcing it over on Daily Kos on December 10th. He called for bipartisan and independent science bloggers to sign up, so I emailed the group through their form and offered my support. I didn’t get a reply and I’m not listed as a supporter, but I’m going to talk about it anyway.
Among the science bloggers who have already posted about the subject is a favorite of mine, “GrrlScientist” over at Living the Scientific Life. While I certainly agree with the description of why a science debate would be good – “intellectual stagnation in public policies” – I was not so impressed with Grrl’s complete rejection of sociopolitical realities in favor of current theoretical consensus in her particular field of science. She concludes:
“It is hoped that, by placing each candidate’s science and technology policies squarely into the public consciousness, the average American will realize that not “believing in” evolution unacceptable, that it constitutes intellectual dishonesty that is tantamount to not “believing in” gravity…”
Um… that sort of attitude isn’t going to fly in the national political arena, with candidates or with voters. Not that I don’t agree that public rejection of current theoretical consensus can interfere with necessary social and political policies that indeed are the responsibility of politicians to develop and implement. But politicians are not scientists and are not required or expected to be scientists. That’s what “science advisors” are for, along with the junior staffers who type up the position statements for candidates’ campaign websites.
That’s how it works for the politicians who get elected too. In the US, government is not a dictatorship of current scientific consensus. I do not believe it’s going to turn into one if scientists insist on displaying their arrogance on television while insulting the politicians, the voting public, and democratic political philosophy.
So I went over to Bora Zivkovic’s blog A Blog Around the Clock, because Zivkovic has so far posted 4 different questions he would ask candidates if this debate takes place. This can help us get a better feel for the issues that concern scientists as well as an idea of how such a debate would be conducted. Zivkovic’s first question is excellent:
“If elected President, what do you intend to do to make sure that you receive trustworthy scientific information and that your policies are based on the best available empirical knowledge about the world? What do you see as the primary role of the Presidential Science Advisor? In what way, if any, would you change the current federal framework of implementing science-related policy?”
It’s a good question because science is quite notorious for harboring opposing and highly contentious views in many disciplines and sub-disciplines. Simply following the science news for a few weeks will give you a general idea of how much incoming research “contradicts” other scientists’ older research, and answers to questions of detail change depending on who you’re asking today. If you care to follow the in-house debates, they’re as rancorous as anything politics can dish out (short of the notorious Hamilton-Burr duel or notable assassinations and impeachments).
Zivkovic’s second question concerns science funding:
“How would you address the current problems of scientific research in the USA – stopping the brain-drain, attracting foreign students, energizing young Americans to consider careers in science, and encouraging development of science in other countries (with free flow of information between nations as well as between scientists and the public in the USA) while still retaining the US dominance?”
Another good question. Not an easy one to answer, either. Looks to me like some work on science education needs to factor in here, particularly at the university level where a scientist gets out of grad school so far in student debt they’ll never dig out. Same problem is happening with doctors (and all other professions), so doing something about that would help everybody. As far as “US dominance” is concerned, that may not be something politicians can do much about. Seems that distinction is up to scientists and their institutions to preserve – if they can. Scientific knowledge is not something that can be held exclusive while at the same time encouraging a ‘free flow of information’.
Zivkovic asks about the complex issue of climate change in question 3, a subject bound to take up a lot of space at a science debate. Question 4 mentions science education and asks for a candidate’s position on who s/he will trust to be “the voice of true authority on a scientific question.”
I’d imagine the answer to that will be no different than it’s been for decades. The NAS panel overviews parsed by ‘expert’ hired science staff and filtered through the advisor to the politician. Perhaps this debate should be held with the candidates’ respective science advisors, who should at least know more about science than any of the politicians running for President.
I understand that most in the scientific community are upset at the Bush administration’s reliance on marginally capable, ideologically biased advisors who’s advice and operational tactics have led to some really awful science policies. But they couldn’t have accomplished that if science were absolute (as opposed to provisional) and there were no disagreements about evidence, interpretations or theoretics. What can politicians be expected to do about disagreements among scientists about science?
I’ll keep my eyes open for more science bloggers and other supporters weighing in with their own issues and concerns and questions. Maybe they can just choose the best questions and send the list to all the candidates well before the debate so their science advisors can come up with answers and the writers can draft responses. And so the candidates can practice their delivery in front of mirrors and focus groups so they won’t look like complete idiots.
If scientists want to play in the political arena – The Show – they should give a thought to its customs, formalities and rules before taking the stage. Otherwise I fear the program will turn out to be more sit-com than useful educational resource.
Links:
We’re all too familiar with how that so often turns out. The linkage that author Gary Taubes cites in the article is the infamous Hormone Replacement Therapy [HRT] doctors once recommended to all women of menopausal and post-menopausal age to prevent bone loss and heart disease. It was the magic cure-all against the consequences of getting old, and by 2001 at least 15 million women were filling HRT prescriptions annually.
Then, in 2002, estrogen therapy was exposed as a health hazard, leading to increased risk of heart disease, stroke, blood clots, breast cancer and maybe even dementia. Women stopped taking it and breast cancer rates plummeted. No one bothered to count how many women died early during the decades of the HRT ‘craze’. Could be tens of thousands.
So science blogger Matthew C. Nisbet of Framing Science wrote an opinion piece in reply to the Times article entitled At the NY Times Mag, is it really “bad science” or is it bad communication?
Nisbet complains about how the Times article uses call-outs such as “bad science,” “science vs. public health,” “the fllip-flop rhythm of science,” and “why we can’t trust science” rather than attempting to explain the sheer complexity of figuring out linkages between diet, drug therapies and human health issues. He seems very reluctant to admit that a large part of the problem in making unwarranted leaps of faith comes directly from the researchers who reported their findings with such excited framing in the first place.
Fact is, as Taubes reports in the Times, we’ve been treated to a lot of sensational science news over the years that turned out to be wrong, and the retractions are hardly ever given the same space on the front pages as the original reports. HRT doesn’t prevent heart disease. High fruit and vegetable diets don’t protect against heart disease either. A daily regimen of low-dose aspirin doesn’t prevent colorectal cancer or heart attacks in women under 65. Folic acid supplements don’t reduce the risk of colon cancer either – in fact, they appear to increase risk!
Nisbet wants to blame news organizations for the problems, as if they should be hiring independent epidemiologists on staff and have them conduct clinical trials to check out the sensational news releases actual science labs and epidemiologists send out daily making spurious claims. That’s ridiculous.
He does note that one of the problems in communication of uncertain science is that university researchers and journalists who write up those sensational news releases are all competing for prestige and future funding dollars. But why does this make the science editor at the NY Times or the Washington Post (et al.) responsible for the mistaken assignment of causation BY those researchers and college journalists?
Perhaps the best thing to do is what Taubes suggests – take it all with a large grain of salt, don’t believe everything you read about what science claims to know. Often they’ll be demonstrated wrong months or years down the road. That’s a shame, but it’s what we see on a regular basis. Nisbet is wrong to try and pin the blame anywhere but on the scientists hyping their extremely preliminary findings as done deals.
Perhaps part of the “Media Awareness” courses young teens are required to take in junior high these days (your basic “how to resist advertising”) should offer some basic rules of skepticism in the issue of evaluating science news. Heck, some skepticism about regular news – especially political news – couldn’t hurt either.
And advanced science education could use at least a semester’s worth of training in how NOT to find yourself on the wrong end of sensationalism about preliminary, untested findings. Maybe call it Reporting Research Results Realistically: 101.