The danger of science denialism

One of the things I love best about this video is how journalist Michael Specter does a great job of articulating a sane relationship with technology and progress. We need more people reminding us that science has simultaneously helped us create the best time to be alive as a human ever, but has also caused problems and hasn't made everything perfect. And that the answer to that paradox isn't giving up on optimism and backing away from science, the answer is scientific innovation, creating better law and policy and improving science transparency and education.

Also, I love that he just ~~coined~~ used the phrase "Big Placebo".

Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net. She writes a monthly column for The New York Times Magazine and is the author of Before the Lights Go Out, a book about electricity, infrastructure, and the future of energy. You can find Maggie on Twitter and Facebook.

Maggie goes places and talks to people. Find out where she'll be speaking next.

MORE: Science

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Anonymous

This sounds like an Amway sales pitch.
Anonymous

Just wanted to point out regarding Genetically Modified foods, the answer to the problems of corporations like Monsanto is NOT to prevent the research and development of foods that could help humanity, but to establish laws to prevent things like the “terminator” seeds that were mentioned in one of the other comments. That battle is not against science, it is a battle about morality and laws, which even the speaker pointed out during his talk.
Anonymous

I never knew that Dustin Hoffman was so passionate and eloquent about this topic!
Stephen

The folks worrying about preservatives in vacines are not doing their research. The preservative in vaccines are demonstrably, VASTLY safer than the mercury in a can of tuna from the grocery store. It’s a similar quantity of mercury to a can of tuna, but it is not bioavailable.

However the risks of not vaccinating and of advocating against vaccination are huge and well understood.

What the anti-vacine crowd are saying is “I am scared, so I’m going to kill your children.” They don’t care because no one can’t point to which particular children they are killing.
skabob

I’m all about darker urine. Big Placebo ftw!
Stephen

Specter is mischaracterizing the Placebo Effect. The Placebo Effect has provably value as long as no harm is being done and the target is something like the common cold or flu; so that belief in the particular placebo is benign.
Anonymous

that thing about about putting vitamin A into rice is pretty cool…
but who came up with vitamin A?
I thought that taking vitamins wasn’t based on science; which drug company do I need to start paying when I eat my carrots?
Delaney

Wow. That seems like a really bold statement especially to say without a hint of doubt. “best time to be alive as a human ever.” I dunno. Being Arawak in the Bahamas in the generation that died just before Columbus landed would have been pretty good.
- Pantograph
  
  Do you want fries with that noble savage?
  - Delaney
    
    Sorry. But yeah. I guess to me it beats being an ignoble savage like me and everyone else I know.
- phisrow
  
  Unless you had the temerity to get a nasty dental infection or something. Contemporary scientific medicine is hardly comprehensive(catch the wrong form of cancer and your 5 year survival is still somewhere between dirt-nap and 5%); but the world before anesthetics and antibiotics, and surgery that was actually pretty survivable, had its downsides…
  - Ghede
    
    Then there was the fact the Arawak enslaved/oppressed the Ciboney, and both of them were trying to avoid being exterminated by the Caribs, who ritualistically ate war enemies. If there was any nobility there, it wasn’t in the majority. Just like everywhere else.
NicholasMiller

Can science tell me how magnets work?
http://boingboing.net/2010/04/10/actually-know-what-i.html
- Maggie Koerth-Baker
  
  It could, but the answer would just piss you off.
Galadriel

Psst! Before giving somebody credit for coming up with a term, might want to do a quick web search to see if, you know, it’s already out there.
wastrel

That was awesome!
Anonymous

Science can’t address everything – morals, greed, the instinctive push for self-preservation..

Everybody isn’t meant to be alive. I’m not in favor of cheapening the whole of humanity’s existence to extend the quality of life in the first, second, or third world.

Science doesn’t address this, but religious view does. You don’t need an iPhone or SUV when you’re living in a scientific colony, solving the problems of the world. Religious perspective determines your attitude toward a leper, and your own place in relation.

If this guy weren’t so polluted by culture and “education”, he may be able to directly experience the effects of ginkgo, and gain greater insight into these lofty problems he’s trying to chronicle and coax humanity into recognizing.
- Anonymous
  
  your only proving the mans point. if you think scientific progress cheapens life than you simply don’t understand what science is. science isn’t the new device you bought from best buy, its the process of learning how the world works.
  
  and to give religion a pass as being the “only” way for us to discover fair morality or comfort in our own mortality, simply ignores the fact that 1 religion has always been on the wrong side of societal progress, and 2 with what we have learned through science, we no longer have a basis for racism or sexism, in science we are all equally human, we all feel pain.
  
  knowing that when i die, that will be the end of my existence, doesn’t cheapen a proclamation like “i want to spend the rest of my life with you” it actually makes such a statement care infinitely more meaning than it would if you think that this life is nothing but a bus stop to something greater.
CpnCodpiece

His US and THEM argument presumes all scientists agree with each other. Besides, if I had that time machine I wouldn’t hesitate, I’d be off back far enough so I could see what the world (starting with my home, New Zealand) was like before man arrived to fuck it all up. Only one thing, try not to get et by those pesky Haast Eagles…
Powell

That was GREAT!
ausPPC

I don’t believe there is anything wrong with science or the true and rigorous application of the scientific method. However I do believe that where science is seen to fail it is due to a poor application of the scientific method and / or a pronounced lack of ethics by individuals and business interests that are typically motivated only by the almighty dollar.
bazzargh

Apparently the credit for “Big Placebo” goes to Majikthise:
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2009/08/alties-vs-healthcare-reform.html

(via Amy Tuteur http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3542)
Anonymous

I agree with everything the speaker said, except the portion concerning GM foods.

People should research Monsanto’s GM food products. The speaker makes GM products sound benign. Monsanto makes “terminator” seeds that do not sprout after the first planting. Seeds that are genetically programmed to be sterile after one planting.

Think about that.

How will the third world benefit from planting food crops, when they are unable to save the new crop seed for reuse in the coming year? Instead farmer’s become dependent on buying seed on an annual basis from Monsanto. It’s about money. This hurts farmers – not helps.
- Grumblefish
  
  I’ve not seen the patent that gives Monsanto 100% ownership of any GM product. So just because Monsanto’s alleged use of GM products is immoral, it does not therefore follow that GM is immoral.
- Anonymous
  
  The farmers would not buy the seeds if it was not profitable for them to do so. Think about that.
  
  The reason for ‘terminator’ seeds is deeper than what you’ve been lead to believe. Firstly, Monsanto should be compensated for the work they’ve put in developing crops which have higher yield, better nutritious value, and greater disease resistance. If the farmers were able to sell the seed to their friends, Monsanto gets screwed over.
  
  Second, this stops cross-pollination with other varieties, something that the anti-GM crowd is always rabid about.
  - Ito Kagehisa
    
    Yo, anon, according to your argument no farmer ever lost his farm, because no farmer ever did anything unprofitable, and no seed seller ever cheated anyone.
    
    Farmers have no obligation to pay for Monsanto’s speculative investments. If Monsanto can’t recover their money without damaging agriculture as a practice, they shouldn’t have spent the money and it’s not anyone’s fault but their own. Nobody has ever had a right to stop people from selling seeds and that’s a market that Monsanto willingly chose to enter. They don’t have the right to restructure the marketplace just because they are too incompetent to keep their costs in line with their expenditures.
- TechNyou
  
  Anon
  
  you can relax. There is no such thing as the terminator gene – not in any commercial crop anyway. Various versions of it are the subject of research by numerous research groups (public and private) worldwide, but for now there is a self-imposed moratorium on the release of such technology – should they be able to perfect it. Anyway, for all the hybrid-bred crops, such as corn, the farmer has to buy new seed each year anyway. Is there a difference between this and a crop with a terminator gene – apart from the breeding technology?
  
  The various technologies being investigated to make offspring sterile have numerous functions: one is to make money by forcing farmers to buy new seeds; a second is to prevent the spread of the GM pollen onto non-GM crops. Can be a double-edge sword sometimes. It depends on where you see the risks and how acceptable they are to the individual
  
  Jason
  Manager, TechNyou
  University of Melbourne, Australia
  http://www.technyou.edu.au
- Anonymous
  
  then be against TERMINATOR SEEDS not GMO. there is almost no food you can buy today that wasnt genetically modified. Its just the farmers used selective breeding instead of test tubes. gmo has saved thousands of people from starving to death or from malnutrition.The only reason I can see to worry about gmo is it may inadvertently create an invasive species, but you know they test for that right?
- glaborous immolate
  
  I keep hearing that Monsanto makes terminator seeds. Maybe this is wrong, but wikipedia says
  
  “In June 2007[citation needed], Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had patented a seed technology nicknamed Terminator. This technology, which was never used commercially, produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting. This prevents the spread of those seeds into the wild, however it also requires customers to repurchase seed for every planting in which they use Terminator seed varieties. In recent years, widespread opposition from environmental organizations and farmer associations has grown, mainly out of the concerns that these seeds increase farmers’ dependency on seed suppliers.
  
  In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize Terminator technology.[25]”
  
  So they could but they haven’t. Evidence they have?
  - Snig
    
    They are allegedly lobbying to use it, though the source below is biased as well:
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/montreal060222.cfm
    
    The obvious question is, if they weren’t interested in using it as per 1999, why did they buy the patents in 2007?
  - Anonymous
    
    http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
    
    Not proof of Terminator use, but clarifies that they are still on that path.
iTuner99

A great way to really think about science as pointed out by the speaker. I’ve lived through small pox and polio thanks to the advancements of science and the vaccines I received as a child. Michael makes some great points that should be considered before we dump science and run with the big placebo dogs.
GordoTheGeek

Other than his strident straw-man argument in favour of GMO’s (If you oppose GM food, you’re letting people die), it was quite good.
- turn_self_off
  
  he has a point, but a point thats only valid if said genes cant be patented. Problem is that if its not patented, it will be put under trade secrets and so noone will know what genes they tweaked. Basically, we get shafted by “good old” corporations either way…
  - donniebnyc
    
    And that’s where the government is supposed to come in. Regulation is supposed to force corporations to do the right thing instead of just the profitable thing.
    - turn_self_off
      
      no no, that would be interfering with the almighty market.
      
      /sarcasm
      
      also, the leaders of the most influential nations are on the take anyways. If not directly then at least indirectly with the understanding that when they are done with politics, they can join the capitalist elite in some role or other…
    - Anonymous
      
      Of course you assume GMs are always made with your best interests in mind. Look at the pesticide GM that kills off needed bees. Not to mention GM plants are mainly used to gain control over crops and strong-arm farmers in court.
      
      It is bad enough that selective breeding gave us the incredibly crappy supermarket tomato that tastes like bland mush but it makes the growers and haulers happy so the customer can lump it, right?
- Anonymous
  
  Wait, what? You don’t get to make up your own facts.
Anonymous

I don’t think he understands the threat of over population at all. It would be nice if everyone could live old and healthy and rich lives but it is not sustainable because if you increase the standards of living for everyone you automatically increase the size of Earth’s population. You give us more food, you give us more energy to have sex.
- Anonymous
  
  Actually, if you have more time available, you also have more time for education, and it has been clearly shown that the more education women get, the more likely they are to abstain from sex for longer and have less children. I mean, think about it. Our(or at least my) grandparents and great grandparents came from huge farming families, but with the help of science, a whole lot less people need to farm today. They don’t need as many hands working in the fields. Kids can afford to go to school for longer. Also, what else did science help us out with? Contraception! Yeah scientific method!
  Using the threat of overpopulation to not to try and feed people is a little messed up. I am pretty sure that if everyone is fed and well educated, the world will be much much better for everyone.
- alexstein
  
  @15
  
  “It would be nice if everyone could live old and healthy and rich lives but it is not sustainable because if you increase the standards of living for everyone you automatically increase the size of Earth’s population.”
  
  What stops population growth?
  
  People who live to be old, healthy, and rich have fewer children. It may be unintuitive, but acclaimed statistician Hans Rosling argues (quite entertainingly and convincingly) that quality of life improvements in the third world may ultimately solve overpopulation.
  
  http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/
  - Anonymous
    
    This professor assumes from the data that the world’s population will level off at 9 to 10 thousand due to smaller families and the developing of nations. He also assumes that nations will reach a certain population and will also level off. He does not take into account migration and imperialism. For example China is gigantic and may grow even more. It could grow past it’s capacity and decide that they need more land and resources and looks at taking over Greenland because it has a low population and tons of land with possible amounts of resources (think global warming, think adios ice sheet, think awesome land for agriculture). Okay now China owns Greenland and is now populating it. They bring there culture over there where they are use to living in large numbers and start to populate the annexed country to a familiar land per capita ratio. Now think of Russia and Northern Canada when put into this scenario. It is impossible to think that this is sustainable. Technology will be fighting to make the earth spit out more food and it may become very successful at it and technology may also allow us to live in places were we normally couldn’t live in places with harsh weather conditions and in uninhabitable land and oceanic environments. If technology could allow us to bound forward like this then we are far from populating the earth to our utmost abilities but not far from disaster. Allowing ourselves to surf on this seemingly everlasting wave of technology advancements may give us whats appears to be the ultimate control over our environment but what it actually gives us is just the power to live sustainably with nature or destroy it all. What I am saying is that technology can be dangerous because it gives us a chance to live beyond our means without us even knowing it. So we should regulate technology before we have to regulate our innate abilities to have huge amounts of kids.
turn_self_off

funny how much of the problems he list comes from people in corporations putting profits before their fellow man.
KeithIrwin

Good talk, although I don’t think I would’ve used the tangerine as an example of something we created. Whether or not it is depends on your terminology. The official naming is that mandarin oranges are the original and then tangerines and clementines are varieties of mandarin oranges (also sometimes just called “mandarins”). But in common usage, a lot of people I know say that clementines and mandarin oranges are a type of tangerine. That is, they use “tangerine” for the category, and there is one member of that category which occurred naturally: the one generally called the mandarin orange.

A better example to use would have been oranges or grapefruit which are both more commonly eaten in the US and all varieties of them are hybrids (keeping in mind that a “mandarin orange” is not actually a type of orange, just as “water chestnut” is not actually a type of chestnut). Neither oranges nor grapefruit grow naturally: both are hybrids between mandarins and pomelos.
Knuckles

The problem is, Specter presents the time travel scenario in a clumsy way. Getting in his hypothetical time machine presumably wouldn’t shoot you back through the ages and plunk you down in the past time you chose to visit, while simultaneously changing your physiology to match that time. Would it suck the antibodies against polio out of my body as I exit the door? What he means to ask is, “If you could choose any point in the history of the Earth, what time would you choose to LIVE IN.” Big distinction. That being said, the measure he forgets to mention when he reels off his list (“health, wealth, mobility, etc…”) is biodiversity. We’re at an all time low on that account, and it might be cool to go back and see the glory days of biodiversity on this planet.
Michael Specter

Thank you for putting this up on your site. I don’t normally get into commenting on comments about my work but I do want to say one thing: the term big placebo has been used by a bunch of people (including me) for a while. I don’t even know for sure where or when I first saw it – but I certainly didn’t invent it.
For the record.

M
- johnnyaction
  
  Great talk!
  
  I agree that now is a great time to live and I share your concern about “reality denialists”. How can you convince people who refuse to accept reality? That question has got me stumped.
  
  On the food front I think we should be irradiating our food so it lasts longer.
Antinous / Moderator

Neither oranges nor grapefruit grow naturally: both are hybrids between mandarins and pomelos.

The only technology involved in most plant hybrids is insects, birds and small mammals.
JEM

Too bad he chides vitamins under “big placebo” at the 9:50 mark, and then later uses vitamin A as a selling point for GMOs. Vitamins do more than darken your pee.

Actually, now that I look closely at it – some of the supplements listed in the “just darken your pee” bar chart actually have scientific evidence backing them up as shown in this infographic (Fish oil in particular):
http://boingboing.net/2010/02/25/which-supplements-re.html
Machineintheghost

@wastrel & Powell & iTuner99

Seconded.

Also, if as JEM says, there are scientific studies that say “X” actually works, then Michael Specter’s own logic, as expressed in this clip, says we should go with that. I don’t think he was speaking about specifics so much as orientation towards rationality as opposed to being a Luddite.
- JEM
  
  I agree that by his logic, natural supplements that are backed up by scientific evidence are good to go. Unfortunately, he specifically calls out people who “took their vitamins this morning”, and repeats “dark urine” while showing the graph that features fish oil as the most popular supplement. Rejecting all natural supplements is not nearly as anti-science as rejecting all big pharma, but it still illogical.
BBanzai

A big difference between a “regular” cassava and a GMO cassava is that one of them will owned by a giant corporation like Monsanto. It may be true that we need the GMO to save lives. But a darker future may come where no one has the right to grow cassava without paying “royalties”.

Unfettered progress is just as dangerous as a ban on progress. People dragging their heels is necessary for a society to grow naturally. Ever seen the enlightened societies of Logans Run, THX 1138 or any other Utopian ideals taken to the logical conclusion.

I am a skeptic, progressive, scientific method loving, man of the future. But I don’t mind naysayers and anti-progressives. They keep us all honest. Most of them are idiots but we need idiots too.
- Gutierrez
  
  If the use of cuttings for growing plants is essentially cloning, then we’re talking about a medium where infinite copies can be made of the source material just from a single source plant being accidentally shared. I see a society of rogue gardeners cruising the ecopopalypse, weilding pruning shears for the people and using cuttings to bud pirate GMO plants. The great agrobusinesses will file their weed out notices in vein as peer to peer seeding begin an argicultural revolution to feed the world.
  
  Coming to a theater near you…
  - Ito Kagehisa
    
    Unfortunately agricultural vegetative propagation is very much like cloning.
    
    Almost never the science-fiction gee-whiz Calvin & Hobbes “perfect copy” sort of cloning.
    
    Each generation gets progressively more corrupt, because the DNA of a living organism changes over time. Sexual reproduction fixes bugs, resets counters and erases errors so that a new creature gets fresh DNA without “accumulated degenerative load” or whatever the kids are calling it these days.
    
    Some plant species that reproduce asexually in nature have evolved hacks around the problem. Those species evolve incredibly slowly (if at all) and are more likely to be entirely wiped out by a disease than species which use sexual reproduction. Reducing genetic drift strengthens the individual in the moment at the expense of the group over time.
    
    Making matters more complicated are corporations selling chimerae; that pretty Bradford Pear is supposedly sterile, but outside the lab it spawns the thorny, wildly invasive Callery Pear.
    
    Cloning is not the best long-term strategy for food propagation. In a worst case scenario you get An Gorta MÃ³r; in the best case you still probably end up with lumpers.
    - Gutierrez
      
      “Making matters more complicated are corporations selling chimerae; that pretty Bradford Pear is supposedly sterile, but outside the lab it spawns the thorny, wildly invasive Callery Pear.”
      
      You know the content is good when they slap GRM (Genetic Rights Management) on it. But I’m sure in time soem enterprising individuals will crack it.
      
      Until then I guess we’ll need access to one commercially licensed Cassava shrub per orchard. Just be careful of the Chinese and Ukranian knock offs, they may look like the real thing but they’re nutritional content is sorely lacking.
      
      Besides, we’ll have moved on to the next upgrade of Cassava before the blight wipes them out.
Anonymous

Regarding GM foods, evil Monsanto and big Pharma: without patent protection, the hard work would never get done. The good news is that patents expire, so we all get the benefit of their hard work after a few years!

Regarding vaccines: I’m not worried about Polio, Measles & Rubella. My kids are getting vaccinated. If these diseases return to the US, only those folks whose parents trust conspiracy theory over science will be effected. Sounds kinda Darwinian to me.

Regarding food aid to the developing nations: Instead of food, we should be giving them education. How does that go? Give a man a fish…
Anonymous

Funny little man.
He didn’t mention Thalidomide, that was great science.
When I grew up you were lucky if you didn’t have flippers instead of feet and hands.
Pre-emerge corn? During trials farmworkers who lived onsite and used wells for drinking water had babies with no brains.
Human fetuses like weeds cancel the growing tip connection to the signal to grow a brain.
Roundup-Ready corn is not open pollenated. Field corn is.
Old fashion field corn is contaminated by Roundup-Ready corn, once the seed stock is polluted by GM corn it is only a matter of a couple of generations till you have no viable seed stock.
People who want to copyright seeds should require they be grown where they cannot pollute strains brought about by SELECTIVE breeding. Selective breeding is different from GM. Selective breeding was better natural corn, but it wasn’t a major problem if cross pollination happened, you didn’t lose viability.
He sure tries to insinuate that everybody who might have a problem with GM of food crops is an ignorant hick, laughable yuppie, or cloistered academic, lest I forget, you could be a parent, which means you are stupid to start with.
Anonymous

If you don’t believe genetic manipulation of foodstuffs should be completely controlled by corporations that have a track record of acting in ways destructive to human society, you are a science denialist!

If you don’t want to see all Palestinians murdered in their beds, you hate Jews!

If you’re not with us, you’re against us!

The Big Lie has been around at least as long as the Big Placebo. If you aren’t a tomato, you’re a bannana!
ryanrafferty

Michael Specter is quite the sophist!

“You’re not entitled to your own facts” – The scientific method does not produce or uncover facts. Science allows us to come close to what’s factual- but there really is nothing in this world you can say is fact with absolute certainty- and this is perhaps not practical or too philosophical, but that is the world we live in– no one, including scientists are omniscient.

“When you get proof you need to accept the proof” – Why? One person’s proof may neglect the larger picture, or ignore details…

Here is a better idea Michael: DEBATE. Debate using academic, intellectual, and scientific methods.

“…they don’t link correlation and causation.” Michael! What you are proposing is fallacious– Correlation does not equal causation… to expound this point is offensive and dangerous… if people don’t want to believe in something, they will face the consequences… if they make their children suffer, they will be held to account for their negligence.

“we love to wrap ourselves in lies”…. I know I don’t…

I agree that fear of science is ludicrous- and agree with the calls to change things for the better… but I think the proper response is to raise the debate intellectually. Let people hold their opinions, if a doctor prescribes lemon juice instead of a vaccine– he or she is criminally liable… just like a murderer is responsible for their actions.

Hold others responsible for their actions- but let thought remain free.

Ultimately opinions don’t matter– the truth will always prevail.
Anonymous

I came in to ask about how magnets worked but Nicholas beat me to it.
Anonymous

Fucking Rainbows
narrowstreetsLA

I think the genetic modification of the past is a little different in scale and scope than that of today. Genetic modification can happen so quickly, and with such widespread effect, that its longer-term effects can be unpredictable.
Anonymous

great clip. but let’s not let science become religion.

vaccines with mercury preservatives? yeah maybe not enough evidence to show autism but maybe we don’t inject heavy metals with our vaccines because science proves it isn’t healthy.

genetically-modified foods? yeah, great stuff but can you not take away my choice to NOT have genetically modified food? until then keep it in the lab please.

nuclear energy? yeah, great stuff but can you find a way to dispose of the waste before putting reactors on every block?

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action.
anansi133

For someone who’s not happy about this “epidemic of fear”. he’s not shy about spreading the fears that *he* thinks are important.
Anonymous

Immediately upon finishing this, I reached for Hannah Arendt’s “Human Condition.”

In her Prologue, she writes:
“…This future man, whom the scientists tell us they will produce in no more than a hundred years, seems to be possessed by a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he has made himself. There is no reason to doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange, just as there is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life on earth. The question is only whether we wish to use our new scientific and technical knowledge in this direction, and this question cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a political question of the first order and therefore can hardly be left to the decision of professional scientists or professional politicians.”

I would argue that [some of] those who are critical of the progress of science understand very well the fact of what science is and can do. However, those activities that Specter relegates to being side-tasks or extrinsic concerns (legality, morality, logistics, etc.) are actually fundamental to–and conditioning of–the scientific realm of science as well, as the latter is a human activity.

What we do about our food and diseases may well be a task of knowledge (its increase and deployment), but if think that this task exists separately from ethical and political concerns, we are deeply deluded.
ryuthrowsstuff

He actually does drop the ball a bit on the whole vitamins\antioxidants\supplements deal. Increasingly over the last few years or so the evidence has been saying that they INCREASE your risk of cancer and heart disease. Had some trouble finding a specific article that covers all the bases but hey look Google:

http://bit.ly/agzXYz

And a TimesOnline article describing the Meta-Analysis that kicked the whole trend off:

http://bit.ly/cPLttx
- Blaatann
  
  Are you sure you haven’t misunderstood his point? He’s arguing that some people’s belief that you need vitamin supplements are bogus (given you have a fairly normal diet). Take a look at Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, if you need aditional information.
Nadreck

The Truth will always triumph – as long as the Truth is willing to go several rounds of mud-wrestling with the convenient Lies of the Mob.

If you want to see what a swell place the world was before anaesthetics watch Boris Karloff’s most terrifying film “Corridors of Blood” where Hammer studios got a “X” rating for it due to a realistic re-creation of pre-anaesthetics surgery. Or you could always just ask those who’ve recently had to amputate limbs without anaesthetics to free people from wreckage in earthquake zones like Haiti.

Anaesthesia was developed as early as it was because of some quick Bible scholarship. The guy who invented it was cornered in his home by a rampaging mob which was outraged that he would try and use it to ease the pain of childbirth. Such pain, of course, being the Just punishment meted out upon women for their role in Original Sin. Fortunately someone thought to point out that God had used the procedure earlier when he caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep as the rib which was used to create Eve was removed – thus making anaesthesiologist the Oldest Profession.

As another example, Evolution as a theory is with us today mainly because of that good old muck-raker Thomas Huxley. It’s not as if Darwin promoted the idea with the public: he was terrified of the reaction that his theory would create. Huxley and his crew (called the “X-men”) were also responsible for the idea of a Profession and were the beginning of the end of Clericalism in Christendom.
ADavies

Vaccines – yay! I’m all down with them. Got my MMR, Diptheria, Yellow Feaver and some Heps (I travel a lot).

But he’s got one thing backwards: Genetically modified food IS techno imperialism.

Big ass western companies selling expensive copyrighted seeds (that often are desiged to work with that company’s brand of pesticide/herbicide) at prices that make them go into debt.

Shit, they’ve even building in DRM…

http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=705

And there is also some question (emperically speaking), whether they the GMO route is actually the best way to boost yeilds…

http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=705
Asgard

while it can be said that the denial of the knowledge derived from the scientific method is one of the greatest intellectual crimes one can commit, it must also be noted that the opposing act of placing blind faith in science is equally as shortsighted.

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/56082/
anansi133

The other thing that bugs me about this: he’s not defending science, he defends engineering. And then treats them as if they’re one and the same.

I can see why: engineering concerns itself with trade-offs. Some goods will be made more expensive so that others will be cheaper. some people’s lives become more dangerous so that others become safer.

Science isn’t about making choices, it’s about asking questions- and who could possibly be against that?
- Anonymous
  
  Some people are against it, I’m afraid, once they notice they’re getting answers they don’t like.
Grimnir

This guy is an ass. There’s a big difference between shitting on science and complaining about the utter lack of scientific inquiry into the safety of GMOs as giant corporations permanently infect our food supply with potentially harmful ‘improvements’. Completely ridiculous, as is his unfounded and unscientific assertion that high technology is needed to feed the world.

I’m not against science, I’m against using the products of science, which have the very real potential to create long-term harm to all of humanity and the world itself, without caution or even careful study. I object to the unethical practices of the companies that sell these products.

Incidentally, the terminator gene discussion is moot– Monsanto sues farmers who have not purchased Monsanto seeds over patent infringement when their poisonous herbicide-resistant crops infect and destroy the real food crops growing on family farms.

These products have not been tested to be safe for human consumption, and until they have been they are not food, and they do not belong on our fields or in our homes. We have allowed giant corporations to corrupt the process by which we are protected from the improper use of scientific advances. Pointing out that fact is not an indictment of the scientific process– it is an indictment of shallow thinking and corporate cheerleaders like this jackass you put on your site.

Fck hm– h dsn’t knw wht th fck h’s tlkng bt, and he’s not a scientist. He harms science.
- robulus
  
  In fairness, Specter makes a disctinction between objecting to genetic modification per se, and the commercial practices of the companies who exploit the practice the most, like Monsanto.
  
  I agree with him here, yes Monsanto operates on the boundaries of ethics and the law, and should be under far greater scrutiny. Just like any number of other corporations.
  
  But GM foods do have a huge part to play in ensuring the world is fed. The potential risks that come with it can be mitigated to some extent, and the benefits could be massive.
  - Grimnir
    
    I think you misunderstood his meaning. He pointed out a distinction between the science of GMOs and the application of those same technologies, true, but he does that to brush off the criticism of their application. Otherwise he would not be so strident in his defense of them. He uses this distinction as a weapon against those who oppose GMOs, putting them in the same category as “big placebo” and people who demonize vaccines. In doing so he actively minimizes the potential dangers. You say those dangers can be mitigated, but the fact is that they are not being mitigated. It is already in our food supply unlabeled and uncontrolled, so if there’s mitigation to be done, where is it exactly? What’s more, you give Monsanto too much credit; it doesn’t operate on the boundaries of ethics– it uses its wealth and power to ensure that the law reflects its interests over all others. It is a criminal organization protected solely by corruption.
    
    What’s more, his suggestion that GMOs are necessary to feed the 9 billion people we can expect to have on this planet throughout the 2100s is frankly ridiculous. If it can be proven to be safe. If it can be proven to be more economical. If it can be proven to be sustainable. THEN we can move forward with caution. But NONE of this has been proven. NONE. He needs to do his research. He has not done so, as evidenced by his false claims and industry bias. It is poor journalism, and the dangers of that are obvious, as your repetition and defense of this piece of propaganda indicates. GMOs may potentially have a role in feeding the world. There is an argument to be made for that. But it is too early to be putting the stuff on our tables. And it is abundantly clear that we cannot trust anything that comes from the big companies promoting GMOs, whether it’s labeled ‘scientific research’ or not. Why not? First, there’s the moral hazard: they benefit economically from selling poorly vetted products even as they hold minimal liability for damages resulting from their disregard for safety. Second, they have shown through their actions that they will choose to act criminally if it produces a profit, that they have little regard for ethics or justice, and that they will seek to abuse their monopoly power to manipulate markets and governments. They cannot be trusted, which means their research is suspect– as any journalist who follows the subject or dares to speak in front of thousands on the subject should already know.
    
    Apparently saying he doesn’t know wtf he’s talking about is too crass, so let me put it another way. This is a piece of irresponsible journalism. It is poorly informed, improperly researched, and it leads viewers to the wrong conclusion, one heavily promoted by monied interests. He complains about people distrusting science and then makes an example of himself, and why it is that people distrust science reporting. It’s shameful and unprofessional. It’s not okay.
    
    That said, obviously I agree with his main argument. Leaders who don’t believe in the scientific process are a clear danger to all of humanity, and a lack of scientific understanding among the general population makes up the bulk of that danger. But that argument is not well served by unscientific distortions of reality, however well put they might be.
hungryjoe

There are a lot of posts in here that refer to Science with the capital S (for instance, the anonymous poster who warns about Science becoming the new religion). As Specter points out, science is a process. It’s not an institution, and it is for damned sure not a for-profit institution (as many scientists will tell you). It is not interested in telling you how to live your life. It is just a method we can ALL use to understand the world around us.

But I’m still thinking about the time machine (how do THEY work?). I’d like to go back to 1995 and try doing something different.
- Anonymous
  
  hungryjoe’s got a point, science is a process, and it has been ever since it was called alchemy. Sadly people like Mr. Specter are not interested in the process, and for him Science does have a capital S. As we slowly finish getting out from under the thumbs of Religion we will be faced with more and more corpo-apologists of the Specter variety trying to start a new Religion, calling it Science and attempting to short-circuit the very processes they claim to represent.
  
  Hopefully we can all remember to keep the ideas of wonder, research, and discovery up front, remain honest and clear about real numbers and probabilities, and never trust strangers who tell you they know the truth.
chrnoble

I thought he was absolutely right until he criticized my sacred cow, and now he is absolutely wrong.
Anonymous

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-matter/7723/
Anonymous

Science, and by extension the rational mind, are awesome, AWESOME, unbelievably powerful tools. The trouble comes when we forget that they are tools, when we start to embody these personas, or methods for living, and begin to believe that we are them. Then a blow to science feels like a blow to you; you’re no longer seeing it objectively, as an external thing that can be a guide, but rather as a fundamental, immovable thing whose demise possibly means the end of the world. But this is pure paranoia. To scorn someone for not innately accepting the principles of science is to ignore that sciences is a method, or a tool, for us to employ how we see fit. It’s an irrational fear that the end of our reliance on the most minute details generated by science and technology is evil or destructive. That to me is no different than the Catholic church protecting itself, or scientology protecting itself. As far as I can tell, from the perspective of my own existence, reason and science are tools for me to employ how I see fit. And if I choose to ignore them for extended periods of time and instead rely on my gut feeling, that’s fully within the power with which I was born.
Anonymous

From the Journal of the American Medical Association:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/61/FIGJOC80862F1

Please consider the graph being extended further back (ie to the left). If you believe in genetic selection of the fittest, (with its obvious corollary that those less fit will die sooner thus removing their “weak” genes from the gene pool) and that “stronger” genes will be passed on to later generations, what is the logical, rational, scientific conclusion to be made from this graph? Now please consider when various vaccinations were introduced.

The huge spike in 1918 is of course the great influenza epidemic. As any rational scientific person will tell you, it is strictly coincidental that the introduction of the first flu vaccine (given to American troops before they shipped overseas) happened at the start of that outbreak.
Anonymous

Science is amoral. Technology is amoral.

The way humans use science depends on their morals and motivations.

The way technology is applied depends on human morals and motivations.

it can go either way. It is user-dependent.
Ben

For some, it’s not the vaccine that worries us, but the preservatives they add to them for longer shelf life. I understand this is a necessary. When we gave our children vaccines, we requested preservative free vaccines. It was a little more difficult to get, because they only good for a short time. But we feel it was worth it.
- Anonymous
  
  And that’s all that matters.
Snig

Wow, science is easy. What is conventionally excepted RIGHT NOW is likely right, and everything other viewpoint and datapoint is bunk and should be shunned and forgotten.
Here I thought science was a complicated field filled with surprises, unexpected relationships and the deeper you dig for answers, the more you come up with fistfuls of thorny questions. Silly me. Well, but now that science and modern medicine have it all straightened out, everything agricultural companies want to use is inherently safe and only in humanity’s best interest and there’s no nasty surprises associated with using any medicines. Doubting them would be churlish.
PrettyBoyTim

It frustrates me that the discussion on GMOs always seems to boil down to ‘Evil Monsanto will own all your seeds!’. It’s as if the benefits of computers always boiled down to them being used in missile guidance systems or nuclear weapon research. Specter is quite right when he says that the problem with large corporations and GMOs are legal problems, not problems with GMOs in general. Monsanto isn’t the only place in the world that can do GMO research – there are for non-profit organisations working to improve food crops and the results of their work will have no restrictions for the farmers who wish to use them.
Anonymous

Minor quibble, but why does everyone pick on cassava?

If you’ve never tried cassava cake, that love child of cheese cake and sweet grits, track down the nearest Filipino or Vietnamese dessert place immediately!
Antinous / Moderator

Monsanto isn’t the only place in the world that can do GMO research – there are for non-profit organisations working to improve food crops and the results of their work will have no restrictions for the farmers who wish to use them.

And for a tiny fraction of the cost of GM, seed banks can select alternative species or cultivars that do the job just as well. Or they could if Monsanto hadn’t destroyed crop genetic diversity by promoting massive worldwide crop monoculture.

Hello. I just burned down your house. Please let me sell you a new one.

In the rush to fellate science, some people seem to have forgotten than science can be simple observation and accumulation of useful knowledge. It doesn’t have to involve creation to be science. But, there’s no profit or glory in that. Just common usefulness.
alllie

Spector is defending groups that have lied to us. That is why some of us have problems with what he describes as science.

There’s an interesting review of his book here: Michael Specterâ€™s new book â€˜Denialismâ€™ misses its targets
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-31-michael-specter-denialism-organic-GMO/

His defense of groups that make big money by promoting, say, drugs and bioengineered foods makes me wonder if he is on the take. Notice he doesn’t mention those that deny global warming.

We don’t trust science when it is slaved to capitalism. Corporations have used its form, if not its truths, again and again, to make money.