# Horizon: Science Under Attack



## Dave (Jan 24, 2011)

BBC - BBC Two Programmes - Horizon, 2010-2011, Science Under Attack

Did anyone else watch this? It is a subject we have discussed before on this forum, especially around the subject of Anthropomorphic Climate Change. 



> Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.
> 
> He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.
> 
> This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.



I was a little disappointed in it actually. He spent about 90% of the programme on Climate Change and only about 10% on the other things mentioned, whereas I do not see this problem as a recent occurrence but a more gradual development from the days when Boffins in White Coats were respected, through the 60's when the link between Smoking and Cancer was not the consensus opinion, through the 70's when the link between Acid Rain and Coal Fired Power Stations was not the consensus opinion.

He made no mention of the use by Courts of Law of Expert Witnesses, which I believe has been the most damaging to the reputation of scientific evidence.

He seemed to lay much of the blame on Journalists being poorly educated in Science, which while true, is, I think, merely a symptom not a cause.

But what really got me was the statement made that anyone who didn't agree with Genetically Engineered Crops must be stupid because they didn't want to eat food with genes in it. I see some real issues with the unrestricted release of GM plants into the environment, and I resent being called a "thicko!" I see Turkeys that can no longer breed without human intervention, and just wonder that once all the natural varieties of a crop have vanished, whether we might be left with a variation that cannot seed itself either.

And while I agree with the main thrust of his argument, I think he might have been accused of cherry picking his interviewees just as he accused them of cherry picking their data.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 24, 2011)

Dave said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql
> 
> But what really got me was the statement made that anyone who didn't agree with Genetically Engineered Crops must be stupid because they didn't want to eat food with genes in it.



I watched the program, Dave and that wasn't the slant that I read into that particular sentence.

I seem to remember that he was saying that people had been asked why they were against GM foods and some people replied "They didn't want to eat food with genes in it."

I wouldn't go as far as to say these people were 'stupid' but I would say that I find it difficult to understand how anyone could go through a modern educational system and not understand that food contains genes.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 25, 2011)

I too found the programme disappointing. For one thing, he interviewed Delingpole, who on his own admission is not a scientist and doesn't have a scientific background**.

For another he was loose with his language, saying things like the NASA (and, I assume, non-NASA) satellites are measuring the climate, when what they are doing is measuring things like air and surface temperature. Okay, _we_ all know what he meant, but that's just the sort of thing that Delingpole and Booker would jump on, saying: "We are told, when we look out of the window, that we're seeing not the climate but the weather, so how can the satellites be measuring the climate?" 

And personally, I think he was too easy on Prof. Jones. Changing the basis of a graph without mentioning it is bad practice, even in statistics, though it's probably common in the "statistics" presented in the media***. And while the graph may have been shown that way for clarity, and in a particular circumstance, letting it be so, and letting it get out into the public domain, is asking for it to come back and bite you, which it has.

All in all, I thought the programme demonstrated many of the things - loose wording, poor-chosen analogies - that have given science its less-than-glorious reputation amongst the non-scientifically-educated public. And although he mentioned the media more than once - and hinted at political bias - he missed the main issue about ACC, which is that it'll cost more than just money (although the monetary cost will be huge) to avert what's being predicted. 


By contrast, last week's programme, which was trying to give a glimpse of different and partially-competing views of the state of existence - a difficult task even if you had a tome in which to get the arguments across - was far more satisfying, because it almost revelled in the uncertainty and went to the various sources rather than trawling up ignorant media scribes.



** - I'm led to suspect that Delinpole was interviewed merely to show him up for what he is. But given that there are plenty of idiots out there supporting theories well grounded in good science (for whatever, non-scientific, reason), I'm not sure this proves anything except that some people, journalists among them, aren't scientists. A case of tackling the man, not the ball?

*** - By the way, I'm not sure the programme mentioned how far back in the past the predictions - the ones being compared to the actual weather on those NASA displays - were made. A day? A week? A month? Longer? If they did miss out this important information (which they may not have) this again gives an opportunity for the skeptics and "deniers" to cry "Foul!". (But perhaps the programme was an example of Show Not Tell. )


----------



## J Riff (Jan 25, 2011)

Way back, the genetic food types were simply called the 'food people.' These are the folks who, historically, controlled the price and distribution of food. Their family biz, a tradition since who knows when.
 They were asked, in no uncertain terms, to leave the USA quite some time ago, but have apparently made headway elsewhere since, and have their hooks in, to the tune of a lotta money.
 This is an ancient thing. Our family controls the food. It's the King and the peasants all over again. Guess the thing to do is find out who these companies are, and not touch anything they have their mitts on at any level.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jan 25, 2011)

I only watched the climate part of the prog. I was also pretty disappointed, and found it to be rather slanted.

[Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist and am sceptical about climate change].

Firstly, consensus does not matter in science. It's just a means of trying to weaken the opposing side by claiming they're a minority and therefore wrong. Science is about facts and evidence, not a popularity contest.

Secondly, I agree that many scientists are pro-warming [as it were], but many are not. It's therefore misleading to the point of deceit to claim that scepticism about climate change is scepticism about science. I believe entirely in science, but not climate change.

Thirdly, it's an appalling show of narrow-minded bias to claim [as Sir Paul Nurse did in his question to Delingpole] that disbelief in global warming is equivalent to preferring homeopathy to genuine medical treatment for cancer.

On GM food [didn't see that part of the programme], I think more information would be helpful. I'm not that concerned myself, but can see why people would be.


----------



## Tillane (Jan 25, 2011)

I thought this was a real missed opportunity.  While agreeing with a good part of Nurse's central point (specifically the assertion that public understanding of science is undermined by poor reporting in the media, often uninformed reporting and debate on blogs and forums, and scientists failing to argue their own case in the public arena a lot of the time), the way he went about it was unfortunate to say the least.  His choice of interviewees seemed an exercise in picking out and knocking down straw men, and I agree with Ursa that he gave Prof. Jones way too easy a ride.

Interviewing Delingpole in particular seemed a poor choice.  Yes, he's a (fairly) prominent blogger, but he's also a deliberately polarising figure: it's his _raison d'etre_ to get up the noses of the pro-ACC lobby, and the language he uses to describe its members and their POV is designed to be inflammatory.  I understand that Nurse wanted to make the point that Delingpole is an example of how the science gets lost in the miasma of claim, counter-claim and denial that make up the blogosphere "debate", but the clips shown came across more like the documentary equivalent of laughing and pointing at the silly man.  Not constructive.

Nurse clearly cares about science, and about the way it is both reported and debated.  He made a couple of good points, particularly in his closing comments when he detailed the need for the scientists to engage more in the public arena.  It is a shame then that, in producing such an imbalanced and poorly constructed documentary, he may actually have achieved the opposite of what he wanted.


----------



## iansales (Jan 25, 2011)

thaddeus6th said:


> Secondly, I agree that many scientists are pro-warming [as it were], but many are not. It's therefore misleading to the point of deceit to claim that scepticism about climate change is scepticism about science. I believe entirely in science, but not climate change.



Not true. The great majority of scientists support climate change. Those that don't are not climate scientists - the biggest sceptic, for example, is a geologist.

Climate change exists.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jan 25, 2011)

Hehe, I am shocked, shocked I tell you!, to discover Mr. Sales disagrees with me 

However, that does not address my point. What I'm saying is that being sceptical of the global warming theory does not equate to an attack upon or lack of faith in science. Claiming that it does seeks to give global warming equal standing with gravity or evolution, and it quite simply does not have that.


----------



## iansales (Jan 25, 2011)

I agree that climate change deniers are not necessarily anti-science. But I was responding directly to your mistaken assertion that many scientists don't believe in the climate change. That's simply not true.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 25, 2011)

I think what you meant to say, Ian, is that the majority** of scientists believe in Anthropomorphic Climate Change, ACC. I would hope all scientists believe in climate change as we all*** know it changes.

The problem for the programme was that it focused too much on climate change. The climate is one of the most complex systems of which we are aware and we simply don't know all the processes that drive it. Yes, as the NASA man said, we are finding out more and more, but that doesn't mean we have a complete grasp. And as the climate cannot be reproduced in the lab, we cannot test our theories directly, but must tackle the parts separately, again allowing sceptics to say that parts of the climate model are built on untested assumptions.

This affects others branches of science****, such as how the universe works, the subject of the previous Horizon. However, the lack of understanding in that area does not mean we can't use technology based on the effects of quantum mechanics. In the case of ACC, we are being asked to change our lifestyles and the way we use our resources. And if this wasn't enough, we are too often confronted by the two poles of the argument ranting at each other (drowning out the science and the scientists). Further, we have allowed financial institutions to pile in, with their carbon trading markets and the scams that prey on them. Is it any surprise that in the wake of the credit crunch, many of the general public were prepared to be sceptical about the latter and thus, sadly, the rest of it?



** - How ever this is counted

** - Even, I expect, those who are deluded enough to think the world was created only a few millennia ago.

**** - The debate about GM is affected similarly. I'm not particularly worried about what's in the food, but I am worried that GM is a technology being tested released into the environment. If there are significant side effects, we haven't got a spare environment to fall back on. (And just look how a few simple engineering developments - steam and petrol engines - have affected the world's ... er ... climate.... )


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jan 25, 2011)

Firstly I do believe the Earth is warming - at the moment.

Well I thought it was a crap program.

To me he seemed to be as guilty of selective arguments as those he criticised.

The solar activity argument seem to be dismissed by going back to the NASA guy who used a totally irrelevant argument about the amount of CO2 we were producing verses natural activity. Eighth time more COS from man than as opposed to the planet I think he said.

Somewhat inflarmatory as it could suggest to the scientifically ignorant that CO2 levels were eight times higher now that we were shoveling coal into power stations.

However this is patently not the case. He made no mention of where all the extra CO2 was going or why given the enormous increase in output those CO2 sinks couldn't handle the slightly higher (very small in relation to the actual levels in the atmosphere) levels we seem to be measuring.

Whereas I seem to recall a program that suggested that each square metre of the earth is roasted with 1 KW of energy, 89000 Terawatts in total. Apparently man is responsible for 15 Terawatts.

Even an extra pimple on the sun would change this dramatically. It would only take a small increase in sun activity to give the Earth a vast amount of extra heat to deal with.

*Ian:* I think most scientist "go along with" the theory of climate being caused by man.

There are many anecdotal examples regarding the way science in this country is funded and how it will always help a scientific research program if you can work in how the change (warming temperatures) in climate affects your findings. I have no direct quotable examples but I do believe it goes on - a lot.

As for the NASA weather pattern prediction screens I nearly threw a stool at the screen. I was seeing that type of prediction forty years ago in my world atlas. Let's see there will be a rapidly moving jet stream or two, some stagnant areas in between. Oh and lets make the clouds swirl a bit for effect. Then add in a few well known features like a gulf stream or two and then run it against almost any days actual observation. The distance from the camera will cover up any major obvious difference but it'll look damn good. Then we can turn to camera and say, in the traditional and typical "assertive science" way. 

"See! We know best, because we can make expensive, pretty pictures."

As for the geneticists know best argument. The mind boggles. Quote a few ignorant idiots not knowing about the genes that exist and then expand the argumaent to suggest that we are all idiots.

I would have known what the 'idiot' meant when s/he said it. It's not 'rocket' science to get the gist of his/her concerns. The agricultural companies would love free reign to market their abominations. You can see the way they like it with their production of F1 hybrids. Where the grower has to keep buying the seeds from the manufacturer because the self pollinated F1 plant is less consistent/healthy and has poor crop yields. If they had their way there wouldn't be any naturally occurring food types so ensuring the manufacturers existence for eternity. Soylent green here we come.


----------



## iansales (Jan 25, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> I think what you meant to say, Ian, is that the majority** of scientists believe in Anthropomorphic Climate Change, ACC. I would hope all scientists believe in climate change as we all*** know it changes.



The original quote was "many scientists are pro-warming [as it were], but many are not", which does not mention ACC or AGW.

And, er. it's anthropogenic rather than anthropomorphic...


----------



## Vladd67 (Jan 25, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> The agricultural companies would love free reign to market their abominations. You can see the way they like it with their production of F1 hybrids. Where the grower has to keep buying the seeds from the manufacturer because the self pollinated F1 plant is less consistent/healthy and has poor crop yields. If they had their way there wouldn't be any naturally occurring food types so ensuring the manufacturers existence for eternity. Soylent green here we come.



Don't forget the Official weed killer that kills everything but the F1 plant. It is immoral to give any company such potential control of the food supply.


----------



## iansales (Jan 25, 2011)

Then the issue isn't genetically modifying plants, it's giving corporations the right to own the GM plants.

Humanity has been genetically modifying plants for millennia. Look at the banana. It was selectively bred to its current shape, colour and taste. GM just shortcuts the process.

But when companies own the genetic code of the plants they've changed, then you're entering a legal and ethical minefield.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 25, 2011)

iansales said:


> The original quote was "many scientists are pro-warming [as it were], but many are not", which does not mention ACC or AGW.


The issue was mentioned more than once, with varied wordings.

For one thing, that statement is, as it stands, hardly much of a basis for his discussion with Delingpole about patients not taking the opinion of their doctors seriously.

For another, the wording you quote is daft (hence you're '[as it were]'). "Many scientists are "pro-warming..."? That could easily be taken to mean that they approve of rising temperatures, which I doubt is what the presenter would say about "many scientists", whatever their position in the debate about ACC. It also veers rather close to the word, warmist, which is not one a serious programme should be invoking in viewers' minds.





iansales said:


> And, er, it's anthropogenic rather than anthropomorphic...


Oops! (But in mitigation, I was in a hurry and didn't have time to edit the post properly. )


----------



## Dave (Jan 26, 2011)

mosaix said:


> I watched the program, Dave and that wasn't the slant that I read into that particular sentence.
> 
> I seem to remember that he was saying that people had been asked why they were against GM foods and some people replied "They didn't want to eat food with genes in it."


Nurse was probably not responsible for the programme editing, but that is the impression the GM guy gave me, and therefore by association, Nurse also. I found the way the programme jumped around odd too. It gave the impression he gave up on Dellingpole, and then went back again for more of the same.



iansales said:


> anthropogenic rather than anthropomorphic...


sorry, that's my fault, but it was rather late at night when I posted it.


iansales said:


> Then the issue isn't genetically modifying plants, it's giving corporations the right to own the GM plants.


That is also huge problem, and not new either, the Third World Green Revolution in the 60's and '70's is one reason why many of those countries are still in debt.

However, I also think the release of GM plants into the environment that haven't evolved naturally to fit a niche in an ecosystem is a risk we shouldn't be taking lightly. 


iansales said:


> Humanity has been genetically modifying plants for millennia. Look at the banana. It was selectively bred to its current shape, colour and taste. GM just shortcuts the process.


And the the carrot, the potato... every food crop. That is the argument frequently used to dismiss the concern I expressed, but the speed of change is far greater now, on a much greater and faster scale than ever before. There is no chance to assess any changes before the march of progress moves ever onward.

And there have been numerous problems with blights of mono-cultures in history, and also of introducing alien species into ecosystems. It isn't like the risks are unknown.


Ursa major said:


> The problem for the programme was that it focused too much on climate change. The climate is one of the most complex systems of which we are aware and we simply don't know all the processes that drive it.


Yes, I totally agree with that. By choosing a branch of science in which some real uncertainties still exist, and which was not his own, he floundered in his arguments. I know he did it because it is the area where the most vitriol has been thrown at scientists, but as I said earlier, I think this is a much broader problem that has been bubbling over for much longer than he does.



thaddeus6th said:


> Firstly, consensus does not matter in science. It's just a means of trying to weaken the opposing side by claiming they're a minority and therefore wrong. Science is about facts and evidence, not a popularity contest.


Well, in a way it does indirectly, because of the Peer Review system. When you publish something, the weight given to it is measured by the number of people who review it positively or negatively, and those reviews are weighted on the basis of reviews of their own work. This was one of the points that Nurse was trying to make very badly. You can make your name in Science by being first to disprove something, so the whole system actually works towards bringing down the Consensus view. If the Consensus view remains for a long time, then it is likely to be true, and the longer people hack away at it and it sticks, increasingly so. Just because some people still have opposing views or there is some data that does not fit does not bring down the whole pack of cards built up with all the rest of the evidence. It can do so, but you need to prove how it fits into the whole existing picture.


iansales said:


> The great majority of scientists support climate change. Those that don't are not climate scientists - the biggest sceptic, for example, is a geologist.


Precisely.



thaddeus6th said:


> Thirdly, it's an appalling show of narrow-minded bias to claim [as Sir Paul Nurse did in his question to Delingpole] that disbelief in global warming is equivalent to preferring homeopathy to genuine medical treatment for cancer.


Actually, I thought that was a good analogy, and it certainly wound up Dellingpole. Some forms of homoeopathy have now actually been proved do work - Acupuncture - and other are certainly pure hokum, but would you really dismiss hundreds of years of modern medicine to try something unproven? Well, yes people do, the also believe in miracles, superstitions and old wife's tales. 


Ursa major said:


> ...[Nurse] was loose with his language, saying things like the NASA (and, I assume, non-NASA) satellites are measuring the climate, when what they are doing is measuring things like air and surface temperature. Okay, _we_ all know what he meant, but that's just the sort of thing that Delingpole and Booker would jump on, saying: "We are told, when we look out of the window, that we're seeing not the climate but the weather, so how can the satellites be measuring the climate?"



I agree that the gee-whizz-bang, wall-to-wall pictures did nothing to promote his argument. What Climate Change needs is more research. Someone should take the theories of Prof. Jones and disprove them. 

The NASA budget for this research was cut by Bush despite a great outcry. It started going wrong when Climate Change became a political debate.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jan 26, 2011)

> Dave:
> 
> Actually, I thought that was a good analogy, and it certainly wound up Dellingpole. Some forms of homoeopathy have now actually been proved do work - Acupuncture - and other are certainly pure hokum, but would you really dismiss hundreds of years of modern medicine to try something unproven? Well, yes people do, the also believe in miracles, superstitions and old wife's tales.


 
To be honest was another part of the program that the telly nearly didn't survive. His question was simplistic and designed to put the Dellingpole on the spot.

However had he had a chance to think he could have smashed through the question.

It isn't that long ago where the consensus of opinion with cancer treatment was cut burn and irradiate the sufferer to near death.

Breast cancer would be treated with full mastectomies on both sides. Prostrate cancer was basically prostrate and everything ripped out and both were then followed up with a dose of radiation poisoning that would kill an ox.

However consensus has changed. Mastectomy is now the last option. Prostrate cancer is less regularly attacked; the sufferer usually dying of old age well before the cancer get hims. There was even an article in the papers recently about a total cure for cancer in our life time.

Similarly AIDS was a death sentence and the best medical advice would be to go straight to the undertaker and pick your coffin.

AIDS sufferers victims can now live for decades with the proper treatment regime.

Consensus is not absolute. It sways in the wind of knowledge.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 26, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> It isn't that long ago where the consensus of opinion with cancer treatment was cut burn and irradiate the sufferer to near death.
> 
> Breast cancer would be treated with full mastectomies on both sides. Prostrate cancer was basically prostrate and everything ripped out and both were then followed up with a dose of radiation poisoning that would kill an ox.



You're right TEIN, but that was in the absence of any other treatment at the time.

The argument being expressed in the program was between one ideology and an alternative one. 

What was the alternative cancer treatment to the ones you describe?


----------

