Denialism (2009) - Michael Specter

Those who have read my recent postings know that I have been focusing quite a bit of my reading on the question of why the status of science and scientific study has decreased in the past few decades. Denialism examines several important areas where scientific findings have been rejected by large segments of the population because the empirically derived outcomes did not comply with popular beliefs.

Michael Specter writes about science, technology and public health for the New Yorker Magazine. He has won the Global Health Council's Excellence in Media Award twice and has won the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Science Journalism Award.

As the title implies, Specter examines how special interest groups in the United States have chosen to reject scientific breakthroughs in recent times despite overwhelming empirical evidence that these advances could solve some of the gravest problems facing mankind.

Specter begins by establishing a rationale for why some people may distrust science and scientists. For this he uses the case of Vioxx as an example of how some science-based companies have betrayed the public's trust resulting in growing cynicism among the population. This has, in turn, provided opponents of progress in other areas of science with the opportunity to exploit this fear and distrust.

One of the biggest threats to public health that Specter identifies is the growing opposition by autism groups and some high-profile celebrities and politicians to childhood vaccinations. Specter cites numerous large-scale studies conducted by different research groups around the world that have looked at the issue and notes that no study has ever found a relationship between autism and vaccinations. None-the-less, these groups dismiss the research and continue to assert their claim. This has resulted in children not being vaccinated and the return of some highly-contagious diseases that had almost been eradicated.

Bio-engineered food represents another area where research has consistently demonstrated only positive effects, but groups and even governments strongly oppose its use. Specter notes that many in the sub Saharan regions of Africa, where there is not enough soil or water to grow adequate crops, suffer hunger and malnutrition that could be averted by the use of bio-engineered food products. None-the-less these are being withheld due to irrational fears.

On the other hand, Specter points to the huge alternative medicine and vitamin supplement market in the US where many of the products that are heralded as miracle cures have been proven to have no positive effect whatsoever. Despite this, proponents angrily dismiss these studies and continue to spend fortunes on homeopathic medicines.

More frightening than the rejection by some of the research findings was the fact that researchers in some cases had to fear for their safety because their findings did not support the beliefs of some of the more radical groups. College professors and government researchers had to have armed guards at their homes and offices for protection.

So, why do groups of Americans reject scientific findings in favor of unsupported beliefs? Is it that scientists have simply not communicated clearly in terms that the typical American can understand as Chris Mooney suggests in Unscientific America? Or is it, as Charles Pierce writes in Idiot America, that Americans can no longer discern proven fact from unsupported opinion because of the cacophony of noise that they hear amplified by the new social media. Is it that breakthroughs in science and technology threaten man's need to feel close to nature as Arthur suggested in The Nature of Technology? Is it all of these things?

How do we educate our students to become innovators in such an environment?