An incredibly thought provoking Scientific American article about science and politics...

[hootinholler]

This one is well worth reading, I found it on my tablet this morning during the bus ride. It is helpful to begin to understand what it is we are up against and why the country may stay anti-intellectualistic and authoritarian for some time unless we can collectively figure out a way to counteract the corporate forces at play.

Antiscience Beliefs Jeopardize U.S. Democracy

Today's denial of inconvenient science comes from partisans on both ends of the political spectrum. Science denialism among Democrats tends to be motivated by unsupported suspicions of hidden dangers to health and the environment. Common examples include the belief that cell phones cause brain cancer (high school physics shows why this is impossible) or that vaccines cause autism (science has shown no link whatsoever). Republican science denialism tends to be motivated by antiregulatory fervor and fundamentalist concerns over control of the reproductive cycle. Examples are the conviction that global warming is a hoax (billions of measurements show it is a fact) or that we should “teach the controversy” to schoolchildren over whether life on the planet was shaped by evolution over millions of years or an intelligent designer over thousands of years (scientists agree evolution is real). Of these two forms of science denialism, the Republican version is more dangerous because the party has taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when science disagrees with its ideology.

...

The investment paid off, but the steady flow of federal funding had an unanticipated side effect. Scientists no longer needed to reach out to the public or participate in the civic conversation to raise money for research. They consequently began to withdraw from the national public dialogue to focus more intently on their work and private lives. University tenure systems grew up that provided strong disincentives to public outreach, and scientists came to view civics and political involvement as a professional liability.

As the voice of science fell silent, the voice of religious fundamentalism was resurging. Moral disquietude over the atomic bomb caused many to predict the world would soon end, and a new wave of fundamentalist evangelists emerged. “All across Europe, people know that time is running out,” a charismatic young preacher named Billy Graham said in 1949. “Now that Russia has the atomic bomb, the world is in an armament race driving us to destruction.”

...

If both Democrats and Republicans have worn the antiscience mantle, why not just wait until the pendulum swings again and denialism loses its political potency? The case for action rests on the realization that for the first time since the beginning of the Enlightenment era in the mid-17th century, the very idea of science as a way to establish a common book of knowledge about the world is being broadly called into question by heavily financed public relations campaigns.

Much, much more I'm still trying to absorb the implications.

[Quantess]

1. Looks like a great article. Is it pro-viking?

No, it really does look like a great article, but you may want to fix the title.

[hootinholler]

5. It's certainly not anti-Norse

Thanks for pointing that out!

[JackN415]

7. :)) n/t

[hifiguy]

2. Thanks for that great link, hoot!

Must reading.

[wtmusic]

3. High school physics shows why it's impossible for cell phones to cause brain cancer?

Really. Maybe SA should take a look at graduate school physics then.



SA has become a pile of crap.

[hootinholler]

8. Way to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm sure that there are climate change deniers who can do the same thing with the article. Perhaps you can get past one picayune detail which has no real relevance to the overall story, read the entire article and then let us know how SciAm has turned to crap.

[wtmusic]

10. You would have to know the old SciAm.

I first subscribed to the magazine in 1970. It was a completely different animal which served as a readable digest of top-tier research projects happening around the world. It was prestigious and respected. The Amateur Scientist taught you how to build a homemade apparatus to measure gravity waves. Martin Gardner's Mathematical Games introduced the public to Martin Conway's Game of Life, which has had a profound influence on growth algorithms and societal modeling. But you had to be a little smart to begin with.

When OMNI Magazine went south in 1995, SciAm made a very concerted effort to nab their readership. It turned into pseudoscientific tabloid in the space of about six months, and I cancelled my subscription.

Now, you get shit like this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-ufos-lighting-up-the-skies-over-2008-08-29

When I see something as arrogantly and blatantly misinformed as the comment in your excerpt I feel I can't rely on them anymore. That's been the case for a while.

[hootinholler]

13. I suppose having read it regularly for the mid '70s to the mid 90's doesn't count then.

Seriously, thanks for the kicks, and I hope others will actually read the article instead of simply bemoaning the state of the magazine as a steaming pile of crap.

[wtmusic]

15. It's encouraging that they didn't mention extraterrestrials anywhere in the first paragraph. nt

[hootinholler]

17. Well nowhere did he mention gravity waves either

Which, I don't think anyone has actually measured one, but the last time I heard about those efforts was in the late '80s.

I think I hear what you mean, but there has been more and more noise building over the last couple of decades which is making it harder to get the signals. Partly, that is one of the things the article is trying to bemoan.

[marions ghost]

21. A friend of mine was a young oncologist

He died of a tumor in the brain which appeared near the ear he always held his phone up to. He researched it extensively and always believed that the cancer was caused by cell phone radiation.

[wtmusic]

22. Using the word "impossible" is the fairly predictable signature of a scientific poseur.

Mathematicians can justify occasionally speaking in terms of black and white. Scientists who do end up eating crow - very black crow.

This author is relying on the fact that cellphones do not create ionizing radiation as proof they don't cause cancer. Though his own research may provide evidence that contradicts the following, I suspect it's just carelessness.

"WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

(CNN) -- Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same 'carcinogenic hazard' category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

[marions ghost]

23. Excellent article--thank you--

From the article:

"What that means is they found some evidence of increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma brain cancer for mobile phone users, but have not been able to draw conclusions for other types of cancers.
---
The European Environmental Agency has pushed for more studies, saying cell phones could be as big a public health risk as smoking, asbestos and leaded gasoline. The head of a prominent cancer-research institute at the University of Pittsburgh sent a memo to all employees urging them to limit cell phone use because of a possible risk of cancer.

"When you look at cancer development -- particularly brain cancer -- it takes a long time to develop. I think it is a good idea to give the public some sort of warning that long-term exposure to radiation from your cell phone could possibly cause cancer," said Dr. Henry Lai, research professor in bioengineering at University of Washington who has studied radiation for more than 30 years.

Results from the largest international study on cell phones and cancer was released in 2010. It showed participants in the study who used a cell phone for 10 years or more had doubled the rate of brain glioma, a type of tumor. To date, there have been no long-term studies on the effects of cell phone usage among children."

----------

PS--my friend's tumor was glioma. Until I read this I didn't know that is the type most associated...

[LongTomH]

4. Bookmarking for later read

[tk2kewl]

6. SCIENCE!

[littlemissmartypants]

9. Great Catch.

Excellent post, thank you!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Absolutely a great article ...

that describes the state we are in and the dangers we face.

“Facts,” John Adams argued, “are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” When facts become opinions, the collective policymaking process of democracy begins to break down. Gone is the common denominator—knowledge—that can bring opposing sides together. Government becomes reactive, expensive and late at solving problems, and the national dialogue becomes mired in warring opinions.

But isn't the highlighted segment kind of backwards? The OP, IMO, correctly indicates the fact/knowledge connection and cites to opinions being not necessarily being based in knowledge. So should it be "When opinions become facts ..."?

[hootinholler]

18. Actually it should be when opinions carry the same weight as facts or something similar

You and I both know that opinions and facts are two very different things.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Yes ...

your framing, "when opinions carry the same weight as facts", is much more on point.

You and I both know that opinions and facts are two very different things.

Unfortunately, by virtue of having that knowledge, makes us a dimishing segment of the population.

As I frequently say to those on the right, "The facts should inform our opinion, not the other way around."

[d_r]

12. Empiracism back from the grave

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Thought provoking but far from good science. It draws a false equivalency attributing

to "Democrats" the skepticism of cell phone emissions and vaccine induced autism, neither of which have any political base as it adherents come from across the political spectrum. It then proceeds to attribute science's withdrawal from public discourse (a debatable phenomenon in itself) to receiving federal funds, completely ignoring the simultaneous commercialization of research through government contracts that deliver a blank check to commercial enterprises interested primarily in developing profits rather than discovery.

In the example of DDT used in the article, it completely ignores its origin and the fact that chemical manufacturers quashed early research that indicated its misuse could have unanticipated, negative effects which only came to light because of the publication of Silent Spring, written by biologist Rachel Carson.

Science's part in the rise of anti-science in America is due far more to the growing control of industrial giants that became giants through war profiteering than to the brief episode of federal finding of pure research. Of course SA is itself today a publication with a primary motivation of profits, rather than the dissemination of scientific discovery and education that motivated its original creation.

[hootinholler]

16. An interesting take on it.

Thanks. Where does a company like Monsanto fit into that view? I believe they've benefited from federal research dollars. How about the drug companies? Manufacturers or industry quashing or contaminating adverse research is prolific, but the main point I took away is that the alignment of industry and the talibornagain is a danger to democracy.

I see what you are saying about false equivalencies and can't say I strongly disagree.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. Monsanto, Dow, Raytheon, DuPont, all the oil companies, GE, ad infinitum, have

engaged in this behavior since at least WWII. They both block unfavorable science regarding their products from release or verification and stifle research into potentially competitive fields and products to maintain their profit margins.

Profits before people and innovation. It's one of the biggest reasons we are falling so far behind the rest of the world in every area.