I’ve been pondering my profession a lot lately, because of the launch of a science communication programhere at Stevens, which is closely allied with a program in science, technology and society (STS). What is the point of science journalism? What should I teach young, would-be science writers (and by science I also mean technology and medicine) to help them become astute assessors of scientific claims? If I were a young, would-be science writer, what would I want my teacher to tell me? Here are some thoughts:
Most scientific claims are bogus. Researchers competing for grants, fame, glory and tenure often—indeed usually–make exaggerated or false claims, which scientific journals and other media vying for readers eagerly disseminate. The more popular a field is, the more likely its peer-reviewed propositions are to be erroneous, according to analyses carried out over the past decade by Stanford statistician John Ioannidis. “False positive and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years,” he wrote in Scientific American in 2011.
The postmodernists are (sort of) right. Some STS scholars are postmodernists, who agree with Thomas Kuhn that science cannot achieve absolute truth. Postmodernists are wrong about that, but they’re right that science often reflects the prejudices and interests—economic, political, ideological–of powerful groups. American science in particular is shaped by the capitalism and militarism of its culture. Science journalists should try to consider the broader social context of research, as STS scholars do (and STS scholars should try to reach a broader audience, as journalists do).
Marx was (sort of) right. Communism turned out to be a bad idea, but Marx’s critiques of capitalism remain sound. He warned that capitalism produces relentless innovation in products and means of production, which invariably benefits haves over have-nots. Many modern economists have confirmed that technology is a major driver of surging inequality in the U.S. This perspective should inform journalists’ assessment of the latest groovy new gadget.
Capitalism subverts U.S. health care. The U.S. spends far more on health care per capita than any other nation in the world, and yet the longevity of Americans ranks just below that of Costa Ricans, who spend about one seventh as much per capita on health care. Two branches of medicine that highlight the flaws of American medicine are oncology and psychiatry. Even the cancer establishment acknowledges that people are being overtested and overtreated. Over the past several decades, moreover, prescriptions for psychiatric drugs have surged, and so have severe mental disabilities, a correlation that could be at least partially causative. Health care, in other words, serves the interests of providers more than those of consumers. Marx wouldn’t have been surprised.
Eisenhower was right. In his famous 1961 farewell speech, departing President Dwight Eisenhower warned against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Today, more than half of the U.S. budget for research and development is allocated to military agencies. The Pentagon is the largest contributor to the new federal BRAIN (for Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative announced by President Obama last year. The American Psychological Association has been implicated in the CIA torture scandal. Meanwhile, prominent scholars implicitly excuse U.S. militarism by promoting the notion—which is contradicted by abundant evidence–that war stems from innate male urges.
What would Noam Chomsky think? Science yields immense benefits, from knowledge about the nature of reality to smart phones that let us tap that knowledge instantly. But given the problems I’ve mentioned above, science doesn’t need more public-relations flaks. It needs tough, informed critics, who distinguish bogus from legitimate claims and ask, Who benefits from this idea or innovation? When contemplating some cool new theory or innovation, I like to temper my enthusiasm by imagining the reaction of Noam Chomsky, the legendary linguist and ferocious critic of U.S. imperialism, capitalism and militarism. I don’t always agree with Chomsky; I’m more optimistic than he is that powerful institutions can achieve genuine progress. But I admire the intelligence and courage with which he challenges authority and received wisdom. Whatever it is that animates Chomsky, science journalists—and STS scholars, and all of us Americans–could use more of it.
John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings, which is part of the College of Arts & Letters. This column is adapted from one originally published on his ScientificAmerican.com blog, “Cross-check.”
Be First to Comment