Proms Podcast

Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

February 28, 2007

Right, what have the scientists ever done for us? Well . . .

Raymond Tallis

A recent MORI poll found that less than half of people surveyed disagreed with the statement that “the risks of science outweigh the benefits”. This is rather as if less than half of bodies believed that, on balance, the circulation of blood was a good thing. But this dismal statistic is perhaps not as surprising as it should be; for it is increasingly fashionable to assert that science is in trouble and that its troubles spell trouble for the human race. Scientific expertise and science itself are regarded with suspicion, while nonsense about science and nonsense passing itself off as science are given an easy ride.

An instructive instance was the panic over the supposed connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Careful studies of millions of children who had been immunised, which showed no causal link, were regarded as somehow tainted, while the views of junk scientists, and of celebrities whose ignorance was matched only by their reckless irresponsibility, were accepted quite uncritically. In the end, science won out but it was a close-run thing and the argument was unconscionably protracted. Even now the Daily Mail is not convinced.

Hostility to science is largely pretence, of course. The most vocal opponents still help themselves liberally to its benefits at every waking moment of their lives. Nor, when misfortune strikes, do they deny themselves science-based technologies to rescue them. When they fall desperately ill, few proponents of alternative medicine choose ancient remedies over modern drugs and surgical operations, which are rooted in, and draw upon, a vast hinterland of scientific knowledge.

And yet this hostility should not be dismissed. Underplaying the benefits of science and emphasising the things that go wrong feeds into a general pessimism about the future, and about human possibility, that could be self-fulfilling. Junk science, which parasitises the language of science — think of “reflexology”, alternative “immune therapies” — thrives on denigration of the real thing and is looming ever larger in the collective consciousness.

Negative opinions about science foster a climate in which medical research, if not actually blocked, is made more difficult by ever more onerous suspicion-fuelled regulation. Rational approaches to the large problems facing the planet are having a harder time against those who want to protect Mother Nature against science-based technology.

One can remind people of the impact of science on life expectancy, and their health, comfort and safety. The figures on life expectancy are worth dwelling on: between the years 1800 and 2000, the worldwide average increased from less than 30 years to just under 67 years. If present trends continue, female life expectancy at birth will reach 100 by 2060 in at least one country. Nor (to anticipate the response of the miserabilists) is this associated with an increase in ill health, as medical science obliges people to drag out their lives in protracted misery. Healthy life expectancy is increasing; and in some countries, such as Denmark, there has actually been a decrease in the period of illness before death, despite remarkable extensions of longevity.

The contribution of medical science — which is increasing as the emphasis shifts from falling infant mortality to (spectacular) declines in mortality in late life — is part of a larger picture of the beneficent impact of science on living conditions, wealth production and technological support for every aspect of daily life.

None of this may cut much ice. Part of the problem is that the scientific basis of our current lengthened life and comfort span, and the huge enrichment of our lives, is rendered invisible through ubiquity. The vast “artefactscape” in which we live, the world of man-made objects in which we pass our lives, every element of which is a meeting place of a thousand cognitive achievements, tends to become conspicuous only on the minority of occasions when things go wrong. The infrequent miscarriages of technology receive more attention than the routine benefactions. The focus on disasters panders to a Prometheus complex, the child of leftover religious belief in a primordial impiety — the theft of fire from the gods — and the inevitable passage from hubris to nemesis. Apocalypse, of course, makes excellent copy.

Other things ease the path of the antiscientist. The honesty of science is a built-in PR disaster. Unlike junk science, it reports its failures, its uncertainties and its changes of mind; and the rewards of fraud in science are short-lived. Self-criticism, perpetual questioning of authorised opinion and received ideas, goes all the way through science like “Brighton Rock” through Brighton rock. Worse, much science is difficult to understand and many educators regard the expectation of intellectual effort in pupils as harassment.

We need to “untake the for granted” and see science for what it is: the greatest achievement of that community of minds called the human race, a truly global enterprise, a model of international cooperation. To acknowledge also that, in order to be able to engage with the natural world on more favourable terms than those enjoyed by any other creatures, humankind had not only to learn to cast light on ignorance but also to overcome the all-too-human propensity to self-deception and kneeling before the authority of received ideas.

Sense About Science, a charity established to promote the cause of good science, needs therefore not only to firefight — to deal, say, with Madonna’s claim that she is helping physicists to neutralise radiation at Chernobyl using kabbalah fluid (stronger, it appears than Harpic) and homoeopaths recommending remedies based on magic thinking for malaria prophylaxis — but to look upstream. It needs to be tough on unreason and on the causes of unreason.

Professor Raymond Tallis is giving the annual Sense About Science lecture, in association with The Times, tomorrow. www.senseaboutscience.org.uk

Much of our misunderstanding of science is due to the lack of scientifically qualified Science Correspondents in the Media. All stories seem to be a gross simplification with the intention of making them more comprehensible by the majority of readers and viewers. However, to simplify complex subjects one needs to be a specialist and to understand the subject completely.

jim ferguson, leatherhead,

though many people deny science,it really makes a great influnce on human.I think it is hard to know whether it is good at the moment.It needs time to prove itself,and it keeps on correting it mistakes in the course.But I hope science will not progress in the cost of other living things' lives.

Pola, Guangzhou,

Almost every scientist I have ever spoken to about the nature of science believes that scientists study the world 'out there' ; in other words, they study an objective world devoid of human emotions and meaning. They find it quite difficult at first to understand that what they are really studying is the phenomena - the mental representations of the world 'out there'.

Once thus enlightened they can then perceive that their knowledge of the world 'out there', far from being objective, is intimately bound up with, and inseparable from, their hopes, fears, and other emotions. The world is one thing, and our knowledge of it is another ; we ought not to imagine that our understanding of the world is the world itself.

James, Norwich,

I had to read that first sentence about four times before I could untangle it. Shouldn't it have gone through a sub-editor first?

AN, Surbiton,

What human really need to survive is very little. But what human want can be infinite.

It's truely sad to see some of the comments here, coming out of selfish people, talking about human race, children want to see them live, ok to sacrifice others for the sake of human etc. Death is a natural phenomenon, what's there to be afraid of. Why cause misery to other life forms?

arctanck, Reading, UK

Well, the "pointless dismal Bill" from Wolverhampton has got me reaching for the diamorphine.

Gerry, Nottingham,

If you can spare him, and I suspect you can't, we need more thinkers like Professor Tallis here in the States. It is a bitter irony that in a country founded by rational thinkers and elevated by its commitment to science and technology, Americans, starting at the very top, express their disdain for scientific methodology and critical thinking.
The problem, though most are too polite to express it bluntly, is fervent religious belief. Since all religious belief requires a suspension in the laws of physics and critical thinking, anything becomes possible. If angels can intercede on man's behalf, why can't kabbalh fluid work at Chernobyl? A single transgression against rationality opens the floodgates. It's a high standard to keep but the scientific method is worth it, at least to those of us who try to practise it.

Larry Gluck, Thousand Oaks, CA

Perhaps we should look into the dismal science education in our Anglo-Saxon schools. This is as applicable to the UK as to Canada, and even more so in the USA.

From my experience, often Science and MAtTH teachers in our [and USA] High Schools have taken the last science courses in their own High Schools. That the politician protects the "LACK of proper job qualification" for teachers, is indicative not of their interest in CHILDREN'S EDUCATION, but of their moral corruption when they bow down to teacher unions.

Even for the well educated Science at the edge is very mysterious, so how scary it would be to the ignorant?

Salamon, Olds, AB, Canada

"that thousands of people refuse drugs which have been developed from animal testing" -Derek S, Dundee

How many is that? 2000? And what about the other 5,999,998,000 people in the World? Should we deny them potentially life saving medication just because you dont want the cute little rat to die?

Pete, Cov,

In the disrespect science has shown its Christian heritage may lie, ironically, the origin of its own angst. Its outward focus has failed miserably to quench the metaphysical thirst within. The rise of alternative religions, denying science’s holy sacraments, bears testament to this.

Nor can the search for meaning be left to the spurious certainties of the null hypothesis. The selfish gene might explain away genocide, but only abstract concepts like love and compassion can ever put an end to it.

We would do well to remember too that all science is provisional, including the “irrefutable” proof of the inexistence of God. But operating together, as Newton and Bacon had intended, they might reverse our present descent into hell.

Nick Ferriman, Bangkok, Thailand

Derek S,
I think my chirldren would prefer me to be alive, rather than dead but 'principled'.

Quite a ridiculous comment.

still alive, London,

The best days of science are surely to come. There is so much more to discover and learn about the universe in all areas of study. I find that exciting. People reject science because they do not understand it and do not have the mental tools available to distinguish between fact and fiction reported in the mainstream media. It is up to political leaders to champion science and win the argument (if they are bold and willing). If the convenience of spin and ignorance triumphs over science then we will all be back in the dark ages with death and misery all around. People who reject science should realise that.

Matt W, Oxford, England

Jonathan said: "If science want to persuade a majority of the voters to spend hundreds of billions, it has to make its case to the voters. That's what democracy means, if it means anything." But that means scientists would have to become activists for Anthropogenic Global Warming, automatically ceasing to be scientists. And why do they need to make their case to the voters? Why do we need Government action? Why not just let people decide in action through the products they buy if they are prepared to become poorer for the sake of "the planet"? The fact is that though Science may be right in the long term about most things (you would be surprised about the things that have been proposed in the name of Science at times), most scientists are rational constructivists and thus economic illiterates; no matter how much they know, they should never be allowed to tell people how to spend their money or run their lives. Hayek explained all this in his book "The Fatal Conceit" years ago.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

The answer to R Bowden of London is that thousands of people refuse drugs which have been developed from animal testing. I know of one elderly lady who died refusing any form of drug for her condition for that very reason. Would that we were all as principled.

Derek S, Dundee,

I've just read one nonsensical comment on here that confirms completely the point of the article.

Dismal, indeed.

Bill, Wolverhampton,

Yes, the Big "Green" Propaganda Machine is an excellent example of junk 'science' guided solely by its ideology rather than by scientific method.

It is early days for the data yet but the today's evidence of the life threatening damage caused by 'health' foods is rather interesting - taking vitamin supplements appears to have a similar risk to smoking. Another potential example of ideological junk 'science' and publicity over evidence.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

Nature does not work in democratic ways, it has it's own rules. Scientific knowledge tries to unravel them. It is not the task of scientists to persuade anybody: it is the task of politicians to base their decisions on sound evidence provided by science. The evidence of global warming is based on analysis of data collected during decades, data that can not be refuted: this forms the basis of current computer models. The democratic system has shown its weakness in that politicians are more interested in protecting short-term financial benefits (often of a few) rather than long-term benefits to the inhabitants of this planet (including their own constituencies). The future may not hit you, Jonathan, but it will hit future generation (as that is in the future too, the generations may not even come, according to your reasoning).

Democracy does mean something, but it has it's limits.

Alex Grigny de Castro, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The perception of our own ignorance is the basis of the scientific thinking. According to it, the more you discover, the more you enlarge the unknown. And the relative overcomes the absolute.
In other words, benefits always carry untward problems with them: Vaccination programs are paramount; they save milions but don't ask the individual experiencing an adverse reaction: he will not care of the avoided disease in milions facing his own disgrace.

To that end, ignorance and luck, are paveving the way to people climing their lives to stand independently of the science. Till something get worse.

Gino Raule, Milano, Italia

you don't mention where the lecture is being held

Toby Donovan, London, UK

Is there any topic that someone, somewhere cannot twist into a rant against the Iraq War/Blair/Bush??

harry, portsmouth, uk

Enjoying the benefits while denigrating the process. Has anyone yet refused a medical cure on the grounds that it was developed by experiments on animals ?

R Bowden, London,

I venture to say that science is undervalued because, in the scale of everyday life, in fact it does not have as much value as scientists would make believe. In any case, the science that impinges on everyday life only does so because of the engineers and technologists who make the science practical. And even here, engineers will say that they do not use science very much ; they proceed very much as they always have since the plough was invented, by the safest and surest method - trial and error.

Burke (I think) said that the best in any civilisation comes first, comes quickly, and is never repeated. The days of the best science are well and truly over. It gave us clean hands, clean water, better food, better houses and improved transport. One good nurse, one good waterworks technician, one good farmer, one good builder and one good bus driver save/prolong far more lives in a year than any number of scientific doctors and assorted 'ologists'.

James, Norwich,

"The honesty of science is a built-in PR disaster. Unlike junk science, it reports its failures, its uncertainties and its changes of mind; and the rewards of fraud in science are short-lived. Self-criticism, perpetual questioning of authorised opinion and received ideas, goes all the way through science like “Brighton Rock” through Brighton rock."

It is interesting that the one area that this does not seem to apply is in the science of climate change/anthropogenic global warming. There are a few credible sceptics out there, but any sensible points of debate (e.g. reliability of proxy studies and the associated statistics, the disparity between the constructed surface temperature record and the recorded values from satellites and radiosondes, the inadequacy of modelling clouds and of solar-cloud interactions) get drowned out by comments about 'consensus' and 'the science is settled', and reference to model outputs rather than to the real world data. (And before anyone jumps on this as signs of me being scientifically illiterate, I have a PhD in geochemistry)

Ian Blanchard, St Albans, UK

An interesting article that makes some pretty good points, especially that when faced with made-up rubbish, real science is its own worst enemy, being absolutely required to point out its limitations.
My main issue with this story is the overwhelming and routine assumption that the only practical application of science is biomedical. This is a fallacy. One only has to look at the work funded by the EPSRC and PPARC in the UK, and by the CNRS in France (to name but three funding bodies) to see the scope of important fundamental research that has limited connections to biology and the health sciences. But because it often isn't photogenic, or the kind of thing that can be used to win an election, popular culture flatly ignores it.
As for Jonathan's remark that 'science is usually right, but sometimes wrong', this is at best a truism.

Matthew, Strasbourg, France

There are two kinds of intelligent people in the World.
(1) People who are ruled by logic, and hence are followers of science
(2) People who are ruled by emotion.

Logically driven people embrace science, however, like the scientists, they constantly challlenge theories and hypothesis to make sure that they are right. People who are driven by emotion however, are easily manipulated by hype, word of mouth, and the media, and they believe what is the current consensus unquestioningly.

Unfortunately there are more from group (2) than (1) which is what allowed Bush and Blair to invade Iraq. Though large proportions of the public were against it, at the time, quite a large proportion of us trusted what our "leaders" were telling us.

How we have been proven wrong. We should have never trusted the Dubya-Blair symbiosis.

Pete, Cov,

Science is usually right, but sometimes wrong.

The consensus that everyone believes has been proven incorrect on a number of occasions in the past.

Global warming is particularly worrying because it is a prediction about the future based on computer models. Obviously, this theory cannot be tested because the future has not yet happened.

If science want to persuade a majority of the voters to spend hundreds of billions, it has to make its case to the voters. That's what democracy means, if it means anything.

Jonathan, NYC , USA

Graeme, Dublin 'alternative therapies should be banned unless proven to work'

I doubt any scientist would make such a call, after all science makes progess by the application of 'alternatives'. Why handicap ourselfs with the belief that our existing knowledge is good enough to judge the alternatives of the future?

Jason White, paris, france

I think one the principal problems with modern science is that it has so vastly increased since the advent of computers that it has created a class of cognoscenti with respect to whom the mass of ignorami naturally feel vulnerable. The fact of ignorance does make one vulnerable, and there is a conspiracy or tendency to limit the communication of information which is presently easily discerned in the field of domestic computer equipment. It is very stingy on information and explanation at a time when that can be much more easily provided. This may be for commercial reasons but it is still a fact. The problem with modern science, as far as I am concerned, as a person limited to general publications, is not knowing what it has achieved, what are the projections, even what are the present branches of science - which I roughly did when I was at school 50 years ago. It is an unsettling position in devious political times.

Henry Percy, London, UK

The problem is with the conception of science as a 'Thing', a behemoth, an uncontrollable, outside influence, enforcing itself upon the poor beleaguered public.
yet as the commentator says science is not an alien influence, it is part of our everyday life and always, has been.
when the first proto-human discovered that a broken rock gave a sharp edge that could be used to cut off tough bits of meat, there was science.
when palaolithic man learned that Boring a hole in a sharp piece of bone allowed a sliver of leather through by which they could fasten two or more pieces of hide together to fashion a form of clothing, there was science.
Science has been the unsused term in the development of food, clothing, furniture, pottery, herbology, building, gardening and agriculture, hunting and storing, flying, riding, driving, walking, running. metal work and needlework. every toothbrush, beermat, chocolate biscuit, pair of socks, and copy of the Times has its basis in science.

Kevin Kennie, Glasgow,

If Professor Tallis would ask the question, "What have Religion, dogma and superstition ever done for us" then we might arrive at the answer to his science question a lot quicker.

Tangentially:
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Denis Diderot.

David M., Leicester,

It is a pity that a column like this even has to be written.I am bothered by the term "junk science",to label it junk would be sufficient.Don't attach the word science to it.

RON, topsham,

Mr. Tallis is wrong in his remarks about MMR. Parents did not panic about MMR, our response was quite rational. Faced with the choice of believing a reputable scientist or a mendacious government that had recently lied to us about BSE, we trusted more in the scientist. The government's refusal to allow us the option of choosing the tried and trusted three injection option, plus the obstacles it erected in the way of those parents fortunate enough to get what they wanted privately, smacked of coercion and merely made us more suspicious. So we immunised our children in a way that avoided any possible risk.
It is not our job to use our kids to prove our faith in science and your scientist's arrogance shows when you castigate us for our 'heresy'

More generally, we are all grateful for the improvements science has made to our lives but we decide whether and how to use the scientists' work. You are not high priests and we are not accolytes.

Jack Kent, London, UK

I wonder if this hostility to science may be hard-wired in us.

Evolution's brief experiment with intelligence as an alternative to brute force seems to have worked so far because intelligence allows you to build a better model of the world around you, predict and avoid novel dangers, and live a bit longer to sire more offspring.

Hard science exposes the intractable complexity of the world. There comes a point where each of us gives up and has to trust the models built by others, even where we don't understand them. This is probably inherently unsatisfactory to an intelligent being.

Soft science, parascience and superstition allow you to retain ownership of your model of the world - Madonna's version of Kabbalah isn't in fact Kabbalah at all, but something she made up for herself. This will occasionally lead to fatal mistakes, but presumably the warm fuzzy you get from it outweighs the risks, especially when the model causes you to assess risk incorrectly in the first place.

ian Kemmish, Biggleswae, UK

Homeopathy and all the other 'alternative therapies' should be banned unless proven to work using the same rigorous standands required by LAW for any mainstream pharmaceutical product. Likewise, people selling homeopathy products to the public should be prosecuted for fraud.

Graeme, dublin, ireland

He expects perfection from where there is only imperfection!
The more I read, the more cynical I become!
Science has been the only good thing in my life!

John, Lewes,

Science is not a "facet of modern society". It IS modern society.

Without it we would be back in the stone age.

Sarah, Brighton, England

The bias towards anti science is skewed towards a selectivity of those that people see as the 'modern', technical and adngerous ones but science is everywhere in our lives, always has been.
When the first proto-human found that a cracked rock gave a sharp edge with which tough bits of flesh could be cut off, there was science born. when palaeolithic humans discovered that a hole bored through a thin piece of bone allowed a sliver of leather to be pushed through, which allowed the joining of two or more bits of hide for clothing, there was science.
science was the developmental force of The clay oven, the shoe, Stonehenge, metallurgy, the toothbrush, the book, the coffee cup and the coffee, the haircut, the chocolate biscuit, the garden, cornflakes, the christmas card, the paperclip, the felt hat, incense, aspirin, cider, coins, wellington boots, beermats, tarmac, toy dolls, cremation, the wine glass...
if you are trully anti-science you will be naked and eating raw meat. Enjoy

Kevin Kennie, Glasgow, Scotland

The earliest major breakthrough in scientific medicine must have been vaccination, introduced by a doctor. It took a scientist to recognise the connection between cholera and drinking water. It was not social scientists who conceived of sanitation, nor who designed and built the early sewage collection and treatment systems.
The lack of hygiene that enables hospital superbugs to thrive is entirely due to the multilayered managers whose only brief is to save money. Every surface in every hospital ward should be cleaned at least every day. Ask any scientist.

Rosemary, Germany,

I look forward to the introduction of "Conscientious Science Rejector" cards. Similar in concept to organ donor ID, on production of such a card you'd be whisked by mule to a wattle & daub wing of the hospital, whereupon wastrels in blood & spit-soaked rags would liberally apply leeches all over your body. Obviously you'd get incantations, too, if you'd gone with BUPA.

Chris Davies, Manchester,

If you conduct a survey, is there not an inbuilt bias in people to agree with the question.

If the question had been "the benefits of science outweigh the risks" you might have found more people agreed.

Julie, Canterbury, England

Sorry, hand washing and sanitation were the number 1 factor for a decrease in mortality (especially at birth) but in the biggest factor since has been antibiotics.
Hand washing/ sanitation may be more helpful in the third world but in developed countries where water is clean hand washing as an epidemiological measure to cut mortality is rubbish. It may cut the "super-bug" transmission for example in MRSA (which can be killed by alcohol gel) and C diff (which cannot.. so use soap and water) but as these are now almost ubiquitous keeping people out of hospital is more important.

D Mayo, Leamington Spa,

Don't be so naive, Mr Watson. It is because of the discoveries of medical science that hand-washing and hygiene are strongly recommended; the two are not separate.

Andrew May, De Panne, Belgium

Part of the problem, I think, is a general mis-understanding of what science actually is. It seems that science is thought of as a set of particular technologies rather than as a way of doing things. Madonna’s kabbalah fluid is unscientific not because it is unconventional technolgy, but because she hasn't tested it. If she did test it and found it to work, then it would be scientific.

Matthew, Ringwood, UK

Sir,

I strongly agree with your view that science is a seriously undervalued and unfairly maligned facet of modern society, but would point more to epidemiology and social science rather than medical science as the key to the vast increases in life expectancy over the last two centuries. Hand-washing and hygiene are the most important factors in maintaining these changes (as is still the case with hospital "Super bugs" to this day), not medical science. No drug or medical operation has had nearly as large an impact.

Toby Watson, Sydney, Australia