The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science By Tom Bethell (describe as a "science writer") Regenry Publishing Company Copyright 2005 270 pages. If you think science is a safe harbor of intellectual honesty, objective detachment, and dispassionate coolheadedness, somehow immune to and above the fray of hidden agendas, rhetorical tricks, mass delusions and hysteria afflicting the masses, if you buy the media fantasy that scientists are a breed apart, anointed with not only superior intellect but superior virtue, uniquely qualified to advise policy-makers because of their telescopic vision, demonstrated predictive powers, and ironclad logic, this book may disturb you. The book makes the case that scientists are just ordinary people in a very competitive, somewhat glamorous business, and exhibit all the ordinary human failings that mere mortals exhibit every day in every other human activity, scrapping and fighting for publicity, funding, status, fame, and job security. And it stresses that even a consensus of the "scientific community" does not mean that another theory will not replace that consensus with another one someday. As a professional scientist, I have to admit a certain enjoyment at seeing some of clothes of my profession's Emperors shown for what they really are in this popular account. Whenever you decide to read something with "politically incorrect" in the title, you are basically guaranteed that that book will be politically charged. Reading politically charged books can be quite fun. On the other hand, reviewing these books is often pointless because a person's political passions have already determined their reactions. Still, as a former college science professor and someone who likes to see both sides, I thought I'd put down a few thoughts. His fourteen chapters address the subjects of global warming, nuclear energy, DDT, dioxin, endangered species, AIDS in Africa, cloning, stem cell research, the Genome project, cancer, and several aspects of "science VS religion", including the Flat Earth claim and Intelligent Design VS. Evolution. First, let me say that there are many things Mr. Bethell asserts here with which I agree. His main point seems to be that the growth of government as the primary investor in science has introduced a leftist political slant. I certainly think that government money has politicized science though I believe conservatives have co-opted science for their political purposes as much as liberals. And I also think that government support has a significant place in science but hope that it will not continue to politicize science. I agree with some of the purely scientific things that Mr. Bethell asserts. I have long been a believer in nuclear technology and the general safety of radiation when used correctly (think of x-rays & CAT scans). In this as well as other subjects including DDT and dioxin, he stresses that the assumption without evidence of the "linear no-threshold" model of dose-response is less likely to be correct than the "hormesis" model. Hormesis or Linear no-threshold? Just because a large dose is very BAD does not mean that a small dose is proportionally BAD. In many cases, that which is harmful in excess is beneficial in small amounts: for example alcohol, sun exposure, and vitamins. If very low exposure to ionizing radiation is as cancer inducing as the "linear no-threshold" model suggests, why are cancer rates much lower in Colorado than in the sea level Gulf Coast even though the background radiation is much higher? He cites numerous examples of lower cancer rate than average in people exposed to higher levels of ionizing radiation than average. And I note that this is "low dose danger" is a strange argument to use against nuclear power considering that a nuclear plant actually emits less ionizing radiation that its chief competitor, a coal fired plant. So the concern must be with a major accidental release of radiation. Even the number of deaths resulting from the April 1986 Chernobyl accident is subject to much dispute today. A September 2005 UN report says fewer than 50 deaths have been directly linked to radiation as of mid-2005. But the government funded Russian Academy of Science report claims up to 67,000 total deaths, based on increased overall mortality in the region. But the Russian number does not factor in the nationwide decline in life expectancy that followed the fall of the USSR, and that is unrelated to the nuclear accident. Also missing from the Russian report is the iodine deficiency in the Kiev region that both makes thyroid problems more common and radioactive iodine more harmful. CO2 and Global Warming. I agree with him that unreasonable fear has kept us from pursuing nuclear technologies that could reduce CO2 emissions and make us much less dependant on foreign oil. And I have written many times on the twisted politics of Global Warming: taking it seriously means accepting nuclear electric power. Or to say it the other way, anyone who is not advocating the construction of large numbers of nuclear power plants to replace our coal oil and natural gas ones, is either not serious about CO2 emissions or is not in contact with reality. His dismissal of the "Greenhouse gas causes Global Warming" claim focuses on the inaccuracy of historical temperature records, the failure to detect a warming trend during the years 1940-1975, and the "heat island" effect of expanding cities. Nothing is said of the large amount of CO2 released by human activity such as burning coal and oil, the resulting measured increase in atmospheric CO2, and the fact that CO2 adsorbs heat radiated by the earth’s surface. He recognizes historic periods of warmer and colder climate (the little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warm Period) and opens his discussion by citing predictions made in the 1970’s of another cold spell due soon. He doesn’t include that these predictions were made based on historic climate trends and did not factor in the effect of increasing CO2 levels. He does not consider the possibility that the expected Little Ice Age was countered by the warming caused by the increased CO2. But that predicted cooling period was to end about 2000 and from then on there is no offset to the CO2 effect. Genetics I am left unconvinced by his arguments on genetic science--the genome project, stem cell research, cancer research, gene splicing & cloning. Just because no significant "curative" breakthroughs have been made (on the order of immunization or penicillin, for example) doesn't mean the research has no value and might not yield future results. Many crop yields are already improved by GMO varieties which also reduce the diesel fuel and land area needed to grow them, and canola oil has health benefits similar to olive oil. He dismisses the claim that embryonic stem cells have the potential to become any type of cell needed by the body as a trivial observation (since they do in normal development), but does not recognize the implications of that for medical treatments. It is as if someone were to watch the first flight by the Wright Brothers in 1903 and complain that their airplane was a waste of money, because if you wanted to go from North Carolina to California a horse drawn buggy would get you there faster. Sure it would, but those with vision don’t dismiss the early state of a new technology because it can’t outperform the highest development of an older technology. A visionary looks at the Wright flyer and projects to the Boeing 747 and compares that to the horse and buggy. Perhaps the excitement about genetic research will prove to be overblown- only time will tell-but excitement is a human quality which doesn't devalue the research. Bethell leaves me with the impression that he has an unstated motive of moral opposition to tampering with the basis of life. Evolution? I also find his arguments about intelligent design vs. evolution to be simplistic and misleading but typical of the very politicization of science that Mr. Bethell seems to abhor. He is correct that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology since the "fittest" in a given environment are those who survive, but that does not undermine Darwin’s theory. Benthell accepts "microevolution": that natural selection can produce small changes such as in moth coloration or finch beak shape or bacteria antibiotic resistance. But he claims that it cannot produce a new species. Now on this point I must admit that the impression that I had from my high school and college education (where I took no courses in biology) was not supported by the fossil record. I had a picture of particular species undergoing large changes over long times. Little dog sized horses gradually becoming larger until they became the modern Clydesdales for example. It was only a couple of decades ago that I learned that a typical individual species appears in the fossil record, remains unchanged (as far as fossil remains can reveal changes) for some time period, long or short, and then vanishes from the scene, its youngest fossil remains looking like its earliest. Modern living horseshoe crabs look just like the fossil remains of their millions of year old ancestors. What does change with time is the complexity and size of successive species. And since what constitutes a "species" is defined in terms of the ability to inter-breed, and that can’t be determined from fossils, the picture of how a new species arrives is murky at best. I mean it would be hard to tell that a Great Dane and a Pekinese are members of the same species from looking at their fossil remains. The author's problem with evolution is due in part that he does not just deny evolution. He actually denies even Mendelian genetics and replaces it with a "law of returning to the mean". Many non-scientific people deny evolution, but only a few creationists go as far as to deny Mendelian genetics. AIDS He claims that AIDS in Africa is deliberately overestimated, both to raise more money and to satisfy the gay political agenda. This is done by adopting a different definition of AIDS for Africans, based on symptoms but not confirmed by a positive HIV test. Thus people suffering from a variety of illnesses in Africa are diagnosed as having AIDS. This was done, he claims, to convince the public that AIDS is not primarily a disease of gay men and drug injectors. Doesn’t it seem strange that AID is so much more evenly balanced between the sexes in Africa than in the US or Europe? His discussion of the AIDS crisis in Africa brings out the suggestion that many Africans were better off under colonial rule. This offends many liberals, especially since there is much to support it. Mr. Bethell discusses the DDT ban and how DDT’s benefits clearly outweigh any supposed dangers it might have, and there is certainly plenty of evidence to back that up. He also discusses the "flat earth" issue and claims that no educated person since the time of the Greeks has believed the earth was flat. The argument in Columbus' time was about the size of the earth, not the shape. Columbus used inaccurate calculations to estimate the size of the earth to be considerable smaller than it is. Fortunately for him, there was another continent between Europe and China. Even at his most accurate & insightful, Mr. Bethell clearly has conservative political issues to spell out. Apart from the typical creationism stand, Mr. Bethell promotes other classic conservatism ideas: his discussion of extinction pushes for private properties & monopolies. That's really the fundamental weakness of this book. What could have been a powerful exploration of serious scientific issues--for which Mr. Bethell could have made some excellent arguments--is instead reduced to the very issues of politics Mr. Bethell decries. It's too bad. An otherwise excellent opportunity to make moderates aware of some real scientific issues is lost. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834 REPLY From: lucasea@sbcglobal.net I saw an interesting article on bbc.com today discussing this timely issue. There are credible scientists that make the point that evacuating the surrounding area after Chernobyl may have been a mistake, given the surprisingly low death rates among those extensively exposed in the area. One interesting point they made is that, in displacing all those towns, the social upheaval and instability was a major contributor to the increased mortality in the region. I guess the implication is that the sudden uprooting and relocation of entire communities led to increased social unrest, murder rates, suicide rates, etc. I don't know how much of that is supported by data and how much is speculation, but it's an interesting thought. That theme reminds me of a TV movie that played a lot in the US in the late 80s and early 90s that posited that the sterile existence in a planned community can lead to some pretty dismal and pathological behavior, particularly in bored kids, up to and including "murder for kicks". I think I remember that it was based loosely on events in an actual planned city in Colorado, but if memory serves, it was pre-Columbine and hence rather prescient. The point was that, communities don't happen all at once, they develop a support infrastructure (like a supporting social network, things to do, culture, entertainment, etc.) as they grow. In the case of Chernobyl, if you just plop 10,000 people into a newly built city/town out of the blue, that support infrastructure just doesn't happen overnight. In any case, the mass relocations after Chernobyl probably amounted to an interesting social experiment, even if it had to be conducted for a terrible reason. Eric Lucas