Editor and General Manager
The June 27, 2016 issue of The New Yorker included an article by Paige Williams that detailed the work of paleoanthropologist Lee Berger, a professor of human evolution at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. Berger is known for a range of discoveries related to human evolution. Within the paleoanthropology community, there is widespread debate about how Berger interprets his findings, and his inclination to self-promotion (well ahead of confirmation) does not endear him to all of his colleagues.
In the February 22nd edition of the same magazine, Dana Goodyear reported on the background, vetting and eventual discrediting of a process developed by Haruko Obokata and colleagues at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology (Kobe, Japan). The method as described, called stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, used stress to turn cells into stem cells. The fallout from the affair derailed careers and, in one case, tragically led to suicide.
Many scientists today worry that more scientific papers are based on false findings than are not. Pressure to publish, the overwhelming volume of papers being submitted for peer review and sometimes faulty use of statistics by researchers are among the suspected causes for lapses in what is an otherwise rigorous scientific process.
Scientific progress is of huge import, and daily discoveries hold out promise of improvements in health and quality of life. But the tide of modern research brings in an ocean of information, and its depth and complexity can be intimidating. It comes at a time when many non-scientists disbelieve, or at least question, both new scientific announcements and the fundamental truths upon which science is based. It comes at a time when people in the public arena feel free to state non-truths, scientific and otherwise, that are entirely suited to personal dogma or agenda, without fear of recourse. In a world where fact-checking is a full-time job, actually being truthful seems to hold little value. Many public speakers value neither accuracy nor broad appeal—it’s safe to say what you want, as long as you hit the notes that ring true to your constituency.
Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey and affiliate of the Trump presidential campaign, has been reluctant to endorse vaccination programs, suggesting that a link to autism, the topic of a long-debunked paper (but a paper that got published nonetheless), is a legitimate concern. In 2008, candidate Obama voiced suspicion of a connection between immunization and autism. It’s hard to tell where politicians really stand on this—are they really worried (their children are usually vaccinated), undecided, or just being politically facile? Even Rand Paul, a physician by training and U.S. senator by profession, has expressed some reservations about the safety of immunization.
Politicians should be basing policy on science, not questioning it. The very act of asking gives rise to the idea that there is even something to discuss, that there are two views, each of which has merit. I understand that some well-meaning individuals worry about vaccines, but how does the autism link still have currency in any official circles? The original paper is universally discredited; beyond that, the protection provided by vaccines (to individuals and communities) is real and important and well documented, and actual side effects—flu-like symptoms, say—are rare and usually not serious. While citing scientific evidence won’t persuade those who are bound to believe otherwise, a rational perspective may provide some support to those who are undecided. And it would be really helpful to all if prominent people, elected officials, in particular, deferred to scientists when discussing matters to which it specifically applies. It is a serious problem when politicians waver or dissemble on topics related to important issues.
Religious leaders who cite the primacy of ancient texts over current research are also not helpful; some have great sway over policymakers as well as over large numbers of followers. Yet the more science reveals about the origins of life on the planet and about the universe, the tighter some religious groups hold on to the certainty of creation stories. I am certainly no theologian, but I would be surprised if some version of most belief systems could not accommodate contemporary scientific findings—God gave man the capacity for discovery.
Scientists are not responsible for the ignorance, willful or otherwise, of politicians or for the homilies of orthodox clerics. But too many missteps by scientists help to undermine public trust—erroneous papers and the open debate that follows their retraction; forensic work that is done with insufficient care; more ominously, Flint, Michigan—the list goes on. These mistakes give credence to those who voice alternatives to science, to those who counter it. The answers are not simple—they involve more work, more time, more scrutiny, larger peer-review panels, more adequate funding for government laboratories and, most importantly, the deep involvement of the scientific community. Fortunately, the scientific community polices itself, and does so for the most part willingly and publicly. Despite impediments, research in all quarters proceeds on a daily basis, and the landscape is changed with the discoveries it brings. While the path can be tortuous, in the end there is reason to hope that good science will win the day.
Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/Labcompare; [email protected]