Facts and data are very strange things in that they have no obligation to be well-researched or, indeed, even factual.
Scientific publications get around this problem through the peer review process. This process demands that every publication be vetted by a group of experts before it is allowed to be published in a reputable journal. At that point, the research leaves the hands of the scientist and makes its way to the public, where everyone has access to it and may do with it as they wish. Unfortunately, due to the perceived objectivity of scientific facts, they are easy to manipulate as justifications for the ways we want to see the world.
For instance, recent research conducted at the University of California, Berkeley has proven that the key to evolutionary success is keeping races genetically separate. If your immediate reaction was to agree with that statement, then kindly find the nearest wall and acquaint your head with it. If you were somewhat appalled by the remark, don’t worry. I can explain.
When Professor Neil Tsutsui helped discover what amounted to a single colony of ants that stretched from California to Argentina, his thoughts centered around the excitement of the discovery. The fact that only one species of ant made up the entirety of the colony was mind boggling. Unfortunately for him, it turned out that his work became a popular topic of debate on white supremacists’ websites. These groups were using Tsutsui’s findings to justify white supremacy. Not surprisingly, he was taken aback by the way his research was being used. To say the least, the research concluded nothing of the sort, and this was by no means the first time that the authority entrusted to scientific research has been used for personal and malicious gain.
A more well-known example one would recognize in the 21st century is the “anti-vaccination” movement. The loose coalition defined itself based on a disproven and retracted 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield which claimed to have found a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and manifestations of autism and bowel disease. Even though the paper was proven to be falsified and Wakefield barred from practicing medicine, his “research” provided a veil of legitimacy to what would otherwise have been considered an undefendable position.
To be fair though, both of these examples are a little extreme. A topic that may hit closer to home for many of us is that of organic food, and whether or not it really is better for us to eat. The benefits are obvious. It’s grown with no pesticides, no genetic modifications and is likely more nutritious. Those of you paying attention, of course, know this is a set-up. While there are certainly differences between organic and non-organic foods, there has been little to definitive research on the actual health value of organic products. The problem is that studies that claimed even a marginal increase in nutritional value are used to justify an entire multi-billion dollar industry for what could essentially be snake oil.
The popularity of organic food for its benefits has become such an ingrained fact, despite the lack of research, that the USDA has regulations on the use of the term “organic.” It’s a small example, but it shows the effects perceived facts can have. I am not saying organic products are bupkis, but given the extremely small amount of research on the topic, a very strong opinion one way or other implies that we are focusing only on the information we want to hear.
For many readers, science and the articles produced therein provide justification for individuals’ beliefs and fears. Science’s supposed objectivity grants an air of authority that distances one from the resultant blame. However, science is subjective, and by its nature pits competing views against each other until evidence supports one over the other. Our natural inclination, however, is toward tunnel vision that focuses on the facts most closely fitting our preferences.
We have to be willing to recognize in ourselves that we have the potential to be self-interested and blinded by the way that we want to see the world. Whether misappropriating scientific facts is done maliciously or because of a simple self-interest, a danger exists in misappropriation. The effects can have massive repercussions on human health or even become the talking points of horribly misguided racists. Science is ultimately just a tool, and as individuals, we decide if we agree with the way it is wielded.
David Garcia is a first-year graduate student in energy science. He can be reached at [email protected].
