Scientists Divided?
“ALTHOUGH we should not discard the notion that science is a quest for truth about the world, we should take heed of the psychological and social factors which often oppose this quest.” So wrote Tony Morton in a paper entitled “Schools in Conflict: The Motives and Methods of Scientists.” Yes, it seems that fame, financial gain, or even political leanings have sometimes influenced scientists’ findings.
As far back as 1873, Lord Jessel expressed concern about such influences in court cases when he said: “Expert evidence . . . is evidence of persons who sometimes live by their business, but in all cases are remunerated for their evidence. . . . Now it is natural that his mind, however honest he may be, should be biased in favour of the person employing him, and accordingly we do find such bias.”
Take forensic science, for example. A court of appeal made the point that forensic scientists may become partisan. The journal Search notes: “The very fact that the police seek their assistance may create a relationship between the police and the forensic scientists. . . . Forensic scientists employed by the government may come to see their function as helping the police.” This journal also gives the example of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombing cases of Maguire (1989) and Ward (1974) in Britain as bearing “eloquent testimony to the preparedness of some highly experienced and otherwise reputable scientists to abandon scientific neutrality and view their responsibilities as helping the prosecution.”
Another outstanding example is the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia (1981-82), which became the basis for the film A Cry in the Dark. Evidence submitted by forensic experts apparently swayed judgment against Mrs. Chamberlain, accused of murdering her baby Azaria. Although she claimed that a dingo (wild dog) had killed the child, she was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, when the baby’s dirty, bloodied jacket was found, the previous evidence did not stand up under close scrutiny. As a result, Lindy was released from prison, her conviction was quashed, and compensation was paid for wrongful conviction.
When scientist argues against scientist, the controversy can become bitter. Some decades ago Dr. William McBride’s challenge to the manufacturers of the drug thalidomide made world news. When he suggested that this drug, marketed to relieve morning sickness in pregnancy, caused severe deformities in unborn children, this doctor became a hero overnight. Yet, years later, while he was working on another project, a doctor turned journalist accused him of altering data. McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud and of professional misconduct. He was struck off the medical register in Australia.
Scientific Controversies
A current controversy is whether or not electromagnetic fields are harmful to human and animal health. Some evidence suggests that there is extensive pollution of our environment by electromagnetism, whose sources range all the way from high voltage power lines to the personal computer and the microwave oven in your home. Some even claim that over a period of years, cellular telephones can damage your brain. Still others point to scientific studies that suggest that electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer and death. As an example of this, the newspaper The Australian reports: “A British electricity authority is being sued over the death of a boy who allegedly developed cancer as he slept near high-voltage power cables.” A Melbourne occupational medicine consultant, Dr. Bruce Hocking, found that “children living within about four kilometres of Sydney’s main television towers had more than twice the rate of leukaemia than children living outside the four-kilometre radius.”
While environmentalists champion such claims, big business and commercial interests stand to lose billions of dollars from what they term “unnecessary scare campaigns.” So they mount counterattacks and receive support from other sectors of the scientific community.
Then there is the controversy over chemical pollution. Some have described dioxin as “the most toxic chemical created by man.” This chemical, described by Michael Fumento as “merely an unavoidable by-product in the manufacture of certain herbicides” (Science Under Siege), was called by some “the key ingredient in Agent Orange.”a It reached its publicity peak following the Vietnam war. Major legal battles ensued between war veterans and chemical companies, each group with its own conflicting scientific experts.
Similarly, environmental issues such as global warming, the greenhouse effect, and depletion of the ozone layer are receiving much public attention. Concerning environmental fears for Antarctica, The Canberra Times newspaper reports: “Research by scientists at Palmer Station, a United States scientific base on Anvers Island, shows high ultraviolet radiation damages lower forms of life such as plankton and molluscs and could start working its way up the food chain.” But many other scientific studies seem to counter such an opinion and to dispel fears about ozone depletion and global warming.
So who is right? It seems that every claim or argument can be proved or disproved by scientific experts. “Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone,” states the book Paradigms Lost. Michael Fumento sums up the matter of dioxin by saying: “We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.”
Yet, some well-known scientific disasters cannot be explained away. Science must account for these.
“A Tragedy of Overwhelming Poignancy”
In “A Message to Intellectuals,” released on August 29, 1948, Albert Einstein reflected on the less glamorous moments of science when he stated: “By painful experience we have learnt that rational thinking does not suffice to solve the problems of our social life. Penetrating research and keen scientific work have often had tragic implications for mankind, . . . creating the means for his own mass destruction. This, indeed, is a tragedy of overwhelming poignancy!”
A recent Associated Press release read: “Britain Admits Testing Radiation on Humans.” The British Ministry of Defence confirmed that the government had carried out human radiation experiments for nearly 40 years. One of these experiments involved the testing of an atom bomb at Maralinga, South Australia, in the mid-1950’s.
Maralinga is a name derived from an Aboriginal word meaning “thunder,” and this isolated area provided the perfect place for Britain to carry out its scientific experiments. After the first blast, the euphoria of success was in the air. One Melbourne newspaper report read: “As the [radioactive] cloud faded, convoys of trucks and jeeps brought the British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand servicemen who’d faced the blast in dugouts just five miles from the explosion point. And every face wore a smile. They could have been coming back from a picnic.”
The science correspondent for the British Daily Express newspaper, Chapman Pincher, even composed a song entitled “Pining for the Mushroom Cloud.” Add to that the assurance of a government minister who said that the test had gone completely according to plan and that there would be no radiation hazard to anyone in Australia. Years later, however, the smiles were wiped off the faces of those dying from radiation exposure, and an avalanche of compensation claims followed. No “Pining for the Mushroom Cloud” now! Maralinga is still a restricted area as a result of radiation pollution.
The United States’ experience with atom bomb tests in Nevada seems to be much the same. Some feel that what is involved is a political issue and not a scientific blunder. Atomic scientist Edward Teller said: “It is not the scientist’s responsibility to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be used. That responsibility rests with the American people and their chosen representatives.”
A Tragedy of Another Kind
The use of blood in medicine became standard practice after World War II. Science hailed it as a lifesaver and declared its use safe. But the advent of AIDS jolted the world of medicine out of its complacency. Suddenly, the supposedly lifesaving fluid turned into a killer for some. An administrator of a major Sydney, Australia, hospital told Awake!: “For decades we have transfused a substance we knew little about. We did not even know some of the diseases it carried. What else we are transfusing, we still do not know because we cannot test for something we don’t know.”
A particularly tragic case involved use of a growth hormone in the treatment of infertile women. Looking for greater fulfillment in life by having a baby, these women saw this treatment as a boon. Years later, some of them mysteriously died from the brain degenerative Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). Children who were treated for stunted growth with the same hormone began to die. Researchers discovered that scientists had harvested the hormone from the pituitary glands of dead humans. Some of the cadavers had apparently carried the CJD virus, and batches of the hormone became contaminated. Even more tragic is the fact that some of the women treated with the hormone became blood donors before symptoms of CJD showed up. There are fears that the virus may now be in blood supplies, for there is no possible way to test for it.
All science involves some risk taking. It is little wonder then that, as the book The Unnatural Nature of Science states, science “is viewed with a mixture of admiration and fear, hope and despair, seen both as the source of many of the ills of modern industrial society and as the source from which cures for these ills will come.”
But how can we minimize personal risk? How can we keep a balanced view of science? The next article should prove helpful.
[Footnote]
a Agent Orange is a herbicide that was used in the Vietnam war to defoliate areas of forest.
[Blurb on page 6]
A government minister said that there would be no radiation hazard
[Blurb on page 7]
The Maralinga test site is polluted with radiation
[Blurb on page 8]
“It is not the scientist’s responsibility to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be used.”—Edward Teller, atomic scientist
[Picture on page 9]
“By painful experience we have learnt that rational thinking does not suffice to solve the problems of our social life.”—Albert Einstein, physicist
[Credit Line]
U.S. National Archives photo
[Picture Credit Line on page 5]
Richard T. Nowitz/Corbis
[Picture Credit Line on page 8, 9]
USAF photo