The blogosphere and twittersphere have been ablaze recently with new views on a debate that has simmered for years: the fact that misuses and abuses of science are not restricted to those on the political right, or to the high-profile issues of evolution or climate change.
The revival of this debate has been prompted by two things: a controversial ballot initiative in California requiring the labeling of certain food products containing "genetically modified organisms" or GMOs; and an article in the Yale Environment 360 by Fred Pearce, a respected freelance author and journalist based in the UK who has written extensively about environmental issues. The title of Pearce's piece is the rhetorical question "Why are environmentalists taking anti-science positions?" In this article, Pearce laments that some in the environmental community make statements or stake out positions that are not supported by science, or are even contradicted by science, and he argues that this is a serious mistake, potentially comparable to the tactics of climate contrarians and the well-documented anti-science positions of some on the right.
Pearce argues, and I agree, that the mind-set that says science can be manipulated in the service of a greater good is deeply dangerous to society and rational public policy. I have been highly critical, as readers of my work on these pages know, about the despicable misuse of science by some climate skeptics and deniers, but I have been equally disparaging of left-leaning environmentalists or well-meaning policymakers who make similar mistakes, such as this example in California. As I state here:
Science is not Democratic or Republican. Scientific integrity, logic, reason, and the scientific method are core to the strength of our nation. We may disagree among ourselves about matters of opinion and policy, but we (and our elected representatives) must not misuse, hide, or misrepresent science and fact in service of our political wars.
But there are some important distinctions that should be made. First, those who manipulate, misrepresent, or misuse the science of climate change or evolution do so in fields where a vast amount of compelling and conclusive science is available, and where the degrees of freedom for disagreement are small -- far smaller than the disagreements that are pushed by deniers and creationists. If you argue that the climate isn't changing due to human activities, or the changes aren't going to have costly consequences, or smoking doesn't cause cancer, or the Earth is 6,000 years old, you can do so only by ignoring or misrepresenting a massive and persuasive body of science.
The science is more complicated or weaker -- and the room for legitimate disagreement is far larger -- in areas such as GMOs, nuclear power, and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) -- examples discussed by Pearce. As a result, there is less accord among scientists or environmentalists or policymakers about appropriate policy in these areas.
Sometimes this is the result of incomplete science or gaps in our knowledge: We often simply don't know enough. Proponents of fracking, for example, argue that there is no evidence of adverse impacts on groundwater quality. While this isn't entirely true, the greater problem is that we just haven't looked very hard. And when we do look, we find impacts.
Sometimes this is the result of unavoidable uncertainties in the science. While there is some degree of uncertainty (in the sense of "a range of possible outcomes") in just about all science, that degree varies from field to field. And not everything is equally uncertain -- beware those who point to natural uncertainties to discredit entire fields.
Sometimes this is the result of subjective perceptions or ethical judgments in how to interpret or weight the science in the context of broader social values. When this is the case, improvements in science and understanding may have no effect whatsoever on perceptions and political positions.
Take GMOs. The debate over GMOs suffers from all three factors: more and better science is needed; there are significant uncertainties in what we think we already know; and some of the positions held by both supporters and opponents of GMOs are actually based on issues completely unrelated to the science. This leads some to "cherry pick" or even misrepresent the science that is actually available -- a key strategy regularly used by climate contrarians. The California GMO labeling campaign is largely playing on people's fear (unfortunately, like campaigns for almost anything these days). In this case, the arguments being highlighted by anti-GMO activists focus on the risk to public health from eating foods containing GMOs. Here I agree with Pearce: There is little or weak scientific evidence for this risk and some campaigners in California are indeed exaggerating or misrepresenting it in order to sway voters. I and many other scientists decry that approach. But absence of evidence of a health risk is not the same as evidence of absence. Reading the literature, I can say that the evidence for health problems from eating GMOs is extremely limited and unconfirmed, but that is not the same as saying we know them to be safe. Much more, and better, scientific research is needed on these risks.
Perhaps more importantly, there are other complicated and potentially serious risks and objections to GMOs -- not all of them purely scientific -- including the risk of gene pollution, misuse of agricultural chemicals, financial and economic questions about market dominance, concerns among farmers about monopolistic and predatory practices of a few companies, and interference in farming practices. These risks deserve more research and analysis, and they are certainly legitimate grounds for disagreement among environmentalists and others, or for arguing that some precaution and transparency in labeling are justified.
Nuclear power is another example of an issue where there is both considerable hyperbole, but also sufficiently complex and nuanced problems to permit disagreement, even using good science. The "environmental" and scientific communities are not monolithic. Some "environmentalists" have long supported nuclear power because they give greater weight to some of its advantages compared to either its disadvantages or its alternatives. Do you believe that climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are a greater threat than the health risks of the nuclear fuel cycle and that renewables will not fill the gap quickly enough? How do you balance voluntary versus non-voluntary risks? Or high probability/low consequence risks compared to low probability/high consequence events? Can the risks of nuclear proliferation be eliminated in all countries with "non-military" nuclear programs? These are complex issues only partly informed by "science" and I do not believe that strong and principled opposition to nuclear power is necessarily "anti-scientific."
What does this mean?
First of all, intentional or misleading representations of scientific findings should be universally condemned, regardless of your politics.
Second, on issues of critical public policy, where science is inadequate or uncertain, efforts must be made to fill the gaps in our knowledge. This requires investment in science, open public discussion and debate, and patience.
Third, on complex issues where science is only one piece of the puzzle involving subjective individual values, ethical judgments, political preferences, or social and economic priorities, advocates should not use (or hide behind) bad science to make non-scientific arguments.
I repeat what I said earlier: We may disagree among ourselves about matters of values, opinion, and policy, but we and our elected representatives must not misuse, hide, or misrepresent science and fact in service of our political wars.
By the way, while it should be obvious that I liked Pearce's article, I think he gets the DDT story wrong, but this is subject for a different post.
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
David Katz, M.D.: Seeking Genetically Modified... Perspective
Rabbi Arthur Waskow: Needed After Sandy: A Hurricane of Social Change
How many of our problems, and how much destruction and suffering, has been and now is being caused by 'things" which science emphatically, unequivocally claimed were absolutely safe and true?
It used to be claimed that cigarette smoking is harmless, and the AMA used to say that what one eats has little to no effect on one's health. DDT was a miracle product.
'Beneficial' insects, birds, the microbial life in soil which sequesters carbon and other pollutants, and the wind do not discriminate or distinguish between genetically engineered crops and what we humans will do with them. Cross pollination and contamination across the board by g.e. seeds has already begun to occur .
Think of what happened on March 11, 2011. It was an event located 'in' Japan, but it happened/is happening to all of us everywhere on this planet.
It may be the height of folly and hubris to believe that our technologies, no matter how outside of natural systems, no matter how 'Frankenstein-ian', should be unleashed upon the world simply because they can be.
~ Is it not high time to clearly follow the Precautionary Principle?
As Hurr. Sandy showed, Nature rules.
We'd better take notice and take her lead with such research and development as Biomimicry and Permaculture- two approaches to solving many global problems which work in cooperation with Nature.
All that could be avoided or severely mitigated by fast-tracking the building of the next generation of nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuels for generating electricity. Building enough renewables by 2030 is not enough, just a drop in the bucket, and it would certainly cripple major economies.
See http://daraint.org/ for more information.
Gleick is correct in pointing out that the arguments for and against GMOs and nuke energy, among other issues, have further implications than simple scientific data verification in one direction or another. We do have to take into account far-reaching social, agricultural, legal and economic implications -- as well as be honest and clear about what the limitations are of our scientific understanding on these controversial topics. Is this even possible given the current trend of outrageous, no-holds-barred gratuitous spin.
But this isn't what happens the majority of the time with anti-science movements. While there is certainly a degree of conscious misrepresentation, even outright lying, for the most part the people in various science denial camps actually do believe that they are in possession of legitimate "alternative science" and that their interpretations are worthy of respect and consideration. They've been taught that this is the way science is done, that one must keep an open mind, analyze the data yourself, and come to your own conclusions. But this isn't the way science is done, is it? Science is done by scientists, more accurately, by the scientific community. Yes, its elitist, a meritocracy. We don't get to vote on it. Its the province of professionals, just like any other profession where the participants must spend a large amount of time and effort training for the right to do the work. But that's not what we're taught. We're taught to be our own scientists, and that we can't trust the elitist scientific community. How could there not be a growing number of "alternative theories"?
Humans have no real hope of survival beyond what science can teach us; we are too fragile and too many to keep deluding ourselves for much longer and, if we continue to do so, the natural evolutionary forces of nature will eventually dismiss us. We must pursue education, science, and technology and do so rigorously because, as Asimov tells us, while science may not ultimately solve the complex problems we face as a species, nothing else can. I applaud Dr. Gleick on a wonderful essay and look forward to future efforts.
"Two things that a scientist will say that a politician won't; I was wrong, and I don't know." Dr Karl Kruszelnicki
What is the difference between using chimpanzees and using humans as test animals, except for anthropocentricism, which is not scientfically based?
Creationists, OTOH, are trying to impose a demonstrably untrue religious belief instead of science.
As an environmental scientist who has actually solved real problem (like MTBE, perchlorate, etc. in groundwater), I find it shocking how anti-science the environmental movement has become. It seems that environmentalism has evolved into a religion, which is immune to observation and can never challenge it own assumptions, based upon new observations and knowledge. Just look at Greenpeace and their anti-golden rice campaign allowing 500,000 children per year to go blind (a true evil outcome).
Enjoy!
However, I think you are falling into the same anti-science trap when you hedge on nuclear power by stating that it has:
"sufficiently complex and nuanced problems to permit disagreement, even using good science".
You go on to support this statement with a series of subjective judgements and beliefs. Those examples you give in your article and the "strong and principled opposition" are not good science because they are not not based on objective evidence and the scientific method. You say you agree with Fred Pearce but in his article you reference, he disagrees with your compromised stance on nuclear power in no uncertain terms:
"Many people have a visceral fear of nuclear power and its invisible radiation. But for environmentalists to fan the flames — especially when it gets in the way of fighting a far more real threat, from climate change — seems reckless, anti-scientific and deeply damaging to the world’s climate future."
Looks pretty economical to me in a side by side comparison with other sources of electricity generation:
Nuclear $0.04 per kWh
Hydro $0.03 per kWh
Coal $0.04 per kWh
Natural Gas $0.10 per kWh
Petroleum $0.10 per kWh
Other Renewables $0.15 per kWh
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
Nuclear power captures in its costs ALL the things that you falsely claim it does not cover, and I find this kind of inaccuracy (to put it no stronger) extremely common in anti-nuclear arguments.
Financing, security, insurance, emergency plans, waste and decommissioning are all directly and explicitly included in the cost of nuclear electricity, which still works out as a competitive value. Even stacked up against other generation methods that don't capture waste, don't pay for security, don't maintain infrastructure, or get government handouts or other preferential treatment.
You description of the science on nuclear power's risk's as uncertain flies in the face of the incredibly robust epidemiology done on the health effects of ionizing radiation exposure by following the survivors of the atomic bombs. Every concern about nukes, from operation to accidents to waste disposal, hinges on the risk if people are exposed, and the science is incontrovertible that the risk, while real, is extraordinarily low. Even with the worst case assumptions about linearity, it is astoundingly low. It is simply innaccurate to suggest this remains an open question.
This is an important distinction.
Risk = likelihood * consequences.
Many people are hung up on the consequences (since they see them in the media and other outlets) without looking at likelihood.
In our country the Precautionary Principle is not the rule of law. LNT has cost this country trillions for protection against trivial risk.
Here is something for you to ponder:
Did you ever think that nuclear can HELP climate change and thus ironically reduce the likelihood of extreme weather that can challenge nuclear?
Its all connected.
Thanks
Rather than rely on dubious science, it would be more intellectually honest and courageous for proponents/opponents of certain policy to concede the scientific argument to their opponent, simply for the sake of a pure policy debate.
For example, rather than deny climate change (even if you truly believe the science supports your position), why not concede AGW may be real and argue policy strictly on the basis of whether proposed policy actually can achieve its desired benefits at reasonable costs?
Are the supposed benefits objectively defined, are they real or imagined, and why? What other factors outside of the proposed policy come into play? Under what conditions and to what degree can the supposed benefits be achieved, and over what period of time? Who will reap the supposed benefits (which remain uncertain), and who will bear the burden of the very real costs (which can be more objectively assesed)?
Most policy proposals directed at reducing CO2 emissions amount to regressive taxation without any certainty (or even likelihood) of achieving measurable benefits. Science and logic is embraced right up to the point of policy proposals, and then the embrace loosens.