I learned just now that there’s a charity in the UK called Sense About Science. From their website, I read:
Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust. We respond to the misrepresentation of science and scientific evidence on issues that matter to society, from scares about plastic bottles, fluoride and the MMR vaccine to controversies about genetic modification, stem cell research and radiation.
Our recent and current priorities include alternative medicine, MRI, detox, nuclear power, evidence in public health advice, weather patterns and an educational resource on peer review.
This is good to hear about. Recall earlier that I was wondering aloud whether there was anything in the UK that is equivalent to the USA’s Union of Concerned Scientists, or the recently formed Scientists and Engineers for America. (See earlier posts here and here, for example.) This is not really an equivalent organization (they consult with scientists, rather than being a scientist-run organisation for example, and they seem relatively disconnected from the makers of public policy, where a lot of the real battles are to be fought), but they are at least swimming in the same waters.
I learned about them because they’re in the news today. ‘Tis the season for celebrities to be selling miracle diets, and other magical things, often using pseudo-scientific language to help get their message across. The Sense About Science people have taken it upon themselves to release a leaflet/flyer targeted directly at celebrities (these are almost entirely British celebrities, by the way, so if you are not connected to the UK, don’t be surpirsed if you’ve never heard of most of these people). You can find the leaflet “Need to Speak to a Scientist?” at the site. Here’s an example from the leaflet:
The actor Joanna Lumley: “We cannot go on force-feeding animals chemicals and growth stimulants the way we are. Why do you think cancer is roaring ahead at the moment?”
John Toy, Medical Director, Cancer Research UK: “Cancer is not ‘roaring ahead’. It is more common mostly because people are living longer. It is essential that ‘cancer causing’ claims are based only on scientifically proven facts, not scaremongering. There is no definitive evidence that controlled food additives cause cancer. We do know that half of cancers are caused by lifestyle factors such as being overweight.”
(Hmm: “caused”…. or “connected to”….? Well, ok, let’s move on. After all, I’m a high energy theorist, not a cancer researcher. I image that there are strong reasons for that choice of words.)
What’s funny about this business is the fact that, according to the Guardian, they are expecting the celebrities to actually read the thing:
Sense About Science has distributed the leaflet to VIP hangouts such as Premiership football clubs, exclusive restaurants, and clubs such as London’s China White and Boujis, as well as the Virgin VIP lounges at Gatwick and Heathrow. The charity has even set up a telephone hotline for the great and good in need of scientific advice.
Football clubs. VIP lounges – Are they serious about this? Do they really think that they’ll get a call from Madonna asking for advice?! It does not hurt to try, I suppose, but I have an alternative strategy. Maybe their efforts would be better spent on getting good information out there to the general public in a sort of “rapid response” unit. As soon as a celebrity stands up and says some mumbo-jumbo, getting press coverage, they do a press offensive in response. In fact, it could be a new kind of celebrity-watching game for the press (and what better country to pioneer it in?), but this time with a positive purpose. The resulting stories would be on the “news” programmes right alongside the celebrity breakup and other stories. Eventually, it might catch on, if done with the right mix of entertainment and real information. You could even have a TV show accompanying it, summarising the week’s celebrity science howlers.
My basic point is this: In seeing the direct and immediate negative hit it can cause to their public image, the celebrities will learn very quickly to be more careful about checking their facts before rambling on about some health issue, etc. Expecting them to take the initiative from reading a leaflet while quaffing champagne at a football club really won’t do it.
-cvj
Hi Wendy,
Thanks.
That is not a true statement. It is far too general.
Furthermore, I think that it is a common mistake to think of intuition and rational thinking as mutually exclusive… they are most certainly not. A combination of the two is what is needed to best navigate through life. Being intuitive is not the same as being uninformed, and it is not the same as allowing yourself to be deceived by charlatans selling you miracle cures and the like.
Best,
-cvj
I have read the correspondence above and I discern a strong adherence to “rational thinking”. Scientifically-oriented individuals live from the premise that “rational thinking” (logical arguments) are the only means through which we should live, make our decisions as to whom we should support. Very little credence is given to INTUITION. As a strongly intuitive person, I frequently have “hunches” about things which turn out to be right later on. This is what guides me and assists me to decide which information to believe, which corporations to support and just generally, who is ethical. This, you can’t get from “logical thinking” alone. My point is that we cannot rely on “rational thinking” to get us through this life, especially in the times we live in. It is vital that we learn to live and act from the heart more, and so bring the mind and heart into a better balance. A brilliant intellect without an elevated heart is capable of extreme ignorance and evil.
Of course! (I’d have thought it was clear from what I wrote that I know that.) It’s fantastically obvious to you and I, but not to many. That’s the problem. We agree, clearly.
As regards rational thinking… sure it is a basic subject, but why *not* use basic science class as a place to teach it in a structures and relatively noise-free context? Seems like a missed opportunity if you don’t, and it encourages the teaching of science as an alive and active subject, and not a list of facts. I can think of no better class in school for this.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Cheers,
-cvj
Spyder. I was inferring the quote above, not implying it. I am not suggesting that anything is safe until proven otherwise – merely that the argument that X has a motive to assert Y is not evidence that Y is false. Anyway I do not wish to create offence – you have clearly done much more background work on this than myself and I am also, like you, skeptical, especially of those with a good motive to lie. But the motive, whilst it might guide you in your degree of skepticism, is not in itself proof of the lie and I think it is incorrect to dismiss such people with the quote “well they would say that, wouldn’t they”.
Clifford. You touch on an interesting point about authority. Whilst Joanna Lumley can speak with great authority on what it is to be a 1970’s sex symbol (I am of that generation too) this authority can’t be transferred to authority on cancer statistics. We see this kind of thing in the media all the time e.g. airline crash victims (essentially randomly selected people) who are regarded as authorities on airline safety and it really annoys me.
However, I do not regard rational thinking as part of the science curriculum, but a more basic subject all in itself covering much more than just science. When I suggested re-use of religious studies time I was of course playing Devil’s Advocate 😉 In my opinion, the world will be made a better place by teaching people how to think rationally for themselves rather than educating them in the supernatural. Rational thinking is not a skill that one always acquires naturally.
I do enjoy reading your blog and the thought-provoking posts.
Spyder is implying that because they are have ties with corporations who are against the regulation of chemicals, then their claims on the safety of certain chemicals are invalid.
Clearly this is not what i said, and the implication is yours not mine. My statement was fact based on the data provided on their own site and from sources such as the UCS itself, as well as GM Watch who has carefully documented the history of Lord Taverne over the last two decades. I am at this moment working through the data appendixed to the new UCS report on the ExxonMobil companies efforts to subvert science through their Global Climate Science Data Center. If i find monies from EM channelled to SoS you can be sure i will share that data.
I am always skeptical of groups that are pro-business, and i believe that such skepticism in warranted time and again. As for reasoned arguments why certain chemicals are unsafe: check the EPA material safety data sheets that come with nearly every one of the ones you seem to be suggesting must be safe until proven otherwise. These are available online, as well as through the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health.
Ah yes, the New Avengers, that would be a different image! I’m not as familiar with that show as I am the original Avengers, which I remember watching fascinated as a child. Great show — that’s the Diana Rigg that I know. Now that you bring it up, I recall that I had a crush on Patrick Macnee — he was so suave and efficient. A sword hidden in his cane! Mad scientists and spies! Guess that was the start of my early interest in science fiction.
Although there was one show that stuck with me for years — the one in which the guy gets shrunk to doll-size by some experimental device, and then is washed down the drain by the villain. The way they portrayed the dispatch of the poor shrunk guy, clinging to the grate for dear life as he’s bombarded with a (relatively) huge stream of water, was so visceral.
(Sorry, it’s a little OT, but you brought back such memories!)
I’ll always think of Joanna Lumley as Purdey, from the New Avengers, for what it’s worth. Excellent show…. although of course not a patch on the original Avengers, featuring the wonderful Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg (sadly, she’s only known to US audiences as the plummy posh woman who introduces some (often corny) British shows on PBS under the banner (fill your mouth with marbles before saying this) “Maaar-stuuuh-piece Thea-tuuuh”.
-cvj
I recognized the name Joanna Lumley, but couldn’t recall who she was (as you rightly guessed, Clifford). I searched on Google Images and immediately recognized her face — Patsy Stone from Absolutely Fabulous! Not sure if you selected her quote intentionally for the contrast, but the unintentional irony of her comment on cancer was not lost on me. Not to conflate actors and the characters they portray, but in my (American) mind, I associate her with extreme boozing, pill-taking, and vacousness. Ackward, kind of like the Pamela Anderson and KFC battle.
Your point is well taken, however, as I watch famousness becomes intertwined with credulousness. Through my work in the food industry, I occasionally come across these celebrity endorsements, and I’m floored at times. The saga I remember most, and that actually went to congressional hearings, was Meryl Streep’s fight against alar on apples.
Italy could use an organization like Sense About Science. Or two. Or three. Science is not discussed and debated at any level and, at the end, the average person is royally screwed, not just by their government, but by the Vatican too. Here is an example of the double-whammy that exists here.
In 2004, as a gift to the Vatican, Silvio Berlusconi’s coalition in the Italian Parliament passed a series of assisted reproductive technology (ART) laws that are widely considered to be the most restrictive in the western countries. These laws passed quietly, _too_ quietly, and in an angry backlash, a group of people gathered the necessary half million signatures to petition the Constitutional Court for a Referendum to the overturn these laws. After losing the petition _in whole_, the Court offered a Referendum _in part_ for voters to overturn the most controversial parts of the ART laws. The four laws were voted by the Italian citizens on June 12-13, 2005, and, in a shockingly low 25% turnout, the Referendum was extinguished.
In the mother and family-oriented Italian culture, how could a set of draconian laws that marginalizes women and family choices, and was delivered by an extremely unpopular prime minister, be extinguished so easily? Enter the ‘Committee of Science and Life’, and dirty politics from the richest country in the world, that is, the Vatican.
==> http://www.comitatoscienzaevita.it/
I prefer to call the Committee of Science and Life the “Committee of Decay and Death”. You will find pink pictures of pregnant mothers and babies and sterile test tubes. You will find ‘scientific’ reports about assisted reproductive technology that doesn’t work and that puts the future of mankind in danger. Or so they say. It’s propanda of the most insidious kind.
If I were to write about this story, an outline might go like this:
I. Italy as the Wild West of Assisted Reproductive Technology
II. Berlusconi’s ‘Gift’
III. Comedies and Tragedies of the the Assisted Reproductive Technology Laws
a) NonScience Nonsense
b) the Barely Catholic Majority
c) Paradoxes of the Modern Church (or how the Pope forgot about Thomas Aquinas and learned to love the Internet and mass marketing)
IV. Signori Average-Italian-Public Hears about Stem-Cells for the First Time
V. Nondemocratic Tricks for a Democratic Society
VI. Italians Choose the Beach Instead of the Voting Booth (and the Referendum is dusted)
(I’m in one of my more cynical moods.. sorry!)
Spyder,
Thanks for the info. Yes, Google is very useful in that way. I still say that as an organisation, reading their stated gols, they are at least on the surface about better information about science for the public… that’s all I meant by “same waters”. And these are good waters to be in. See also the comments by Charles T.
Charles T.,
I agree with you, overall, except to say that perhaps we don’t need to start taking time away from religious studies just yet. We should pick battles that we can win. In that vein, we might want to start by seeing exactly what is *currently* in the science curriculum, and begin by using that classroom time better. Are we teaching science as random facts, or as a living subject? Are we teaching analytical thinking, or acceptance of authority for its own sake. If it is the latter (that is often the case), then of *course* Joanna Lumley’s words about cancer will be perceived as important. She’s successful, well-known, speaks with a posh accent, and on tv more than your average scientist, and therefore in the minds of agreat deal of the British public, those things alone makes her an authority on anything. The only thing missing from her resumé in this regard is the absence of a famous sporting (preferably footballing) partner or spouse. (As far as I know.) Ok, I’m getting a touch cynical here, but you get my point….
-cvj
SAS do seem to be advocating that people draw conclusions based on evidence which is a worthy cause. Interestingly they steer well clear of climate change.
Spyder is implying that because they are have ties with corporations who are against the regulation of chemicals, then their claims on the safety of certain chemicals are invalid. This is a good example of reasoning which is not based on evidence (the so-called motive fallacy) – the kind of reasoning that I that SAS are trying to educate people against. If he wishes to dispute the claims made by SAS I think it would be better to point out flaws in SAS studies, other studies with different conclusions or better still a reasoned argument why a certain chemical is unsafe.
I agree with you Clifford that their efforts are probably doomed. I live in hope for the celebrity who becomes “cool” by denouncing the nonsense that they usually endorse.
I think the only long term solution is that all children should be educated in reasoning and how to spot faulty reasoning when it is presented to them. Currently this is left to chance. This would definitely make life harder for quacks, politicians and other purveyors of BS. Why anybody would pay any attention about what Joanna Lumley has to say about cancer is a mystery to me.
The school curriculum time currently allocated to religious studies would be perfect to re-use for this education.
I would be a little concerned about an organization set up by a philosopher who has close ties with the very corporations that advocate against the regulation of chemicals that the Sense of Science likes to claim are safe. But then, that is why we have Google, and the ability to conduct searches of institutions and their funding sources isn’t it?? In constructing a comparison to the UCS you have noted that the make up of the Boards are substantively different in expertise and backgrounds. But the “same waters” are really not at all similar. UCS produces scientifically supported research reports and consultive documents, SoS seems most concerned with proposing efforts that support the industries who support them. Science doesn’t need any more industry propagandists. Speaking of which did you happen to see this “scientific” report?