Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives



A Well Intentioned Failure to Communicate2
"Denialism" states author Michael Specter, "is denial writ large---when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie". The author proceeds to examine recent current events and issues to bolster his contention that the healthy and rigorous skepticism of science has been replaced by a loss of faith in science itself. By examining the events around the removal of the anti-inflammatory medication Vioxx from the market, the current controversy about vaccines, what the author describes as the "organic fetish", the rise in popularity of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine), and the flawed concept of race, Specter attempts to show that American gullibility and hostility to science are endangering our lives, our nation, and our planet.

I'm a family physician, and I face what Specter terms "denialism" on an everyday basis, both in the office and in general conversation. Whether speaking with Young Earth proponents that feel the planet is no more than a few thousand years old, parents that refuse immunizations for their children, people that won't take medication for their blood pressure or heart disease because they fear the side effects more than the disease, or doubters of global warming, I'm regularly faced with people across the spectrum of intelligence, and across the spectrum of religious or political belief, that are unable to interpret the facts that are beginning to impact them where they live. What I had hoped for, when I picked up this book, was an investigation into WHY otherwise well-meaning, often educated, responsible people take rigid stances on issues that are starkly at odds with the facts. Further, I hoped that solutions would be offered to help break through these barriers between well documented information and subsequent ability to act accordingly. Denialism left both hopes unfilled. The book thus becomes more of a wringing of the hands rather than a rolling up of the sleeves.

The book fails on several levels. First, the people most likely to read a book called "Denialism" are the scientific faithful. Being amongst that crowd, I'm as happy as the next guy or gal to be told that I'm right and they (the denialists) are wrong. But I already thought that, and I'm wondering how this book moves even a tiny step closer to those that we would like most to reach. Specter appears to have so much disdain for deluded souls that he might as well have titled his book "Stupidism". The marked tone of condescension virtually guarantees that the target audience that the author would like to reach will tune out within 20 pages. Secondly, I deal with many otherwise quite intelligent folk that run businesses, or hold other positions of high responsibility, but also ascribe to astrology, homeopathy,or cult religions. If such people were amenable to facts, they would have gotten the point long ago. Specter's solution to this is to attempt to bludgeon the "denialist" with page after page of facts. Whatever it is that is blocking the understanding of the "denialist", it is not access to facts or information. The blockage is most likely emotional, possibly based on fear, and one does not most effectively deal with emotional barriers by using facts as instruments of assault and battery.

In order to make my third and final criticism, I need to relate a short story. As I write this, there is a high level of anxiety about a duel epidemic of flu, traditional and H1N1, in my community. My wife is a teacher at a local middle school. In the teacher's lounge yesterday the topic was flu vaccines, both the traditional and the H1N1. All the old reasons for not getting the flu vaccinations surfaced: "I've never had the flu, why should I worry about it?" or "Last time I got the flu shot, I got the worst case of flu that I've ever had" or "This is a new vaccine, what if they got it wrong and it kills more people than it helps?". One teacher, struggling to make up her mind, turned to my wife and said "Are you going to get the flu shot?". My wife replied "I've never gotten a flu shot before, but this year, Dan (that would be me) is really worried about it, and he thinks I should get it. So yes. I'm going to." The teacher then announced "I know Dan, he's a good doc, he would NEVER recommend a flu shot for Cindy unless it was his very best guess that she should do it. That's enough for me. I'm going for it.". The point here is that trust is an essential companion to facts. And the truth is that the frequent divorces between science and wisdom, between science and ethics, between science and the environment have done tremendous harm to the trust science feels that it deserves. No knowledge comes without subsequent responsibility, and Denialism addresses this fact only weakly. PhD's in geology (oil and mineral technology), chemistry (pesticides, household products containing carcinogens, napalm, neurotoxins), pharmacy (don't get me started), physics (nuclear weapons) are granted with little, or more commonly, NO training in ethics. Science is my religion, but my church has to up its game if it wishes to regain lost trust. Denialism doesn't even begin to discuss how this might be done.

Ironic, is it not, that a book entitled Denialism appears to be in denial about the substantial damage that scientists themselves, through arrogance or unethical behavior, have done to the field of knowledge that appears to be our only route towards solving the enormous challenges mankind currently faces. The solution to denial will be a multi-factorial one, and involve movement of both sides toward each other, rather than a merciless beating down of the recalcitrant "denialist".

Lastly, True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society is a very readable and interesting exploration of why the way a person thinks is not always congruent with the best information available. I found it illuminating.

Such an important topic deserves better2
Denialism is all around us in many forms, from the anti-vaxxers to the Holocaust deniers and "Moon landing hoax" proponents. Scientists get it from both sides, from the populist know-nothings on the right to the conspiracy paranoiacs on the left. It's been addressed in various books over the years, from Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things to Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. But the new varieties of denial keep coming, as do the examples of corporate and scientific malfeasance that fuel them, and the fear-mongering media and crackpot celebrities keep cranking up the general level of anxiety. So we should welcome authors who can help to calm the panic and redress the balance.

Sadly, Specter fails in this. His concerns are real, the targets well-chosen, and the depth of his research is impressive. Unfortunately the presentation fails in several respects. The introduction is disorganized, as he keeps oscillating between the irrationality of the denialists and the range of provocations that have led to a quite understandable level of popular anxiety. And once he plunges into his first example - the drug Vioxx - it's unclear why he feels that it advances his argument. Merck put profit ahead of rigor, and patients paid with their lives. True. Where's the denialism? It looks like good old-fashioned greed. And so forth.

That pretty much sets the tone for the book. It's scattershot. There are probably half a dozen plausible essays for the New Republic or Mother Jones lurking in here, but as a sustained argument it's a flop. And that's a shame.

I don't believe you, You're a liar4
Dylan's infamous (and considered apocraphal until documented on the official bootleg version of the concert) retort to British hecklers during his 1965 plugged-in tour serves as a good colloquial definition of "denialism", Specter's term for the tendency to "replace the rigorous and open-minded skepticism of science with the inflexible certainty of ideological commitment."

Specter documents denialism in its most visible and he believes most damaging manifestations: anti-vaccination activism, organic and natural foods and farming, alternative medicine, and opposition to race-based medical and genetic diagnosis and treatment. Along the way, I found Specter touching on common threads across all these instances of denialism:

1. Inability to accurately understand and assess risk--this is a combination of a failure of our educational systems to properly teach statistics and probabilities, and of our media which report on risks in sensationalistic and not statistical terms. Risk is especially fascinating in the arena of vaccines, which must be applied in a large enough percentage of the population to benefit the entire population (Specter tells us that "herd immunity" is the term scientists use for this threshold), even if there is some increased risk of disease or death in a very small percentage of the population. .

2. Opposition to any profit-making company--"The establishment", an amorphous techno-scientific-corporate-bureaucratic consortium is assumed by denialists to be behind the suppression of some key facts to keep consumers ignorant/addicted/controlled for some larger nefarious goal, which, as Specter points out, is never defined and undefinable as such conspiracies don't exist (in general companies who kill their customers as part of conscious business plan are not likely to survive long).

3. Distinctions between theoretical scientific research and applied scientific technologies--Specter doesn't draw this distinction until his final chapter, a flaw which weakens his argument by making some concerned but technically-conservative citizens seem to be simple denialists. It is possible, and Specter does, point out instances of poorly-applied technologies that have resounded to the detriment of all or a substantial subset of human beings. Failing to make the distinction between unbridled research and controlled technical applications weakens his argument, for example when he says that opposition to abortion stands in the way of "faith in progress". It is hard to see how restricting the application of the technology of abortion (an ethical decision that is properly within the purview of society and government) stands in the way of scientific research.

Specter could have strengthened his argument and improved his book if he pulled these valid points out of the narrative into a separate chapter talking about why denialism exists and how it can be combated.

All of these points and why it is important to understand them come into focus in the final chapter when Specter shifts gears to talk about a field of theoretical research that is rapidly moving into technical application in ways that will profoundly affect our lives: biogenetic engineering--the creation of new life forms (cells, viruses, animals, and even humans). Specter aims to start the discussion about the risks and rewards of this technology now, so that we understand and apply them in ways with ethical and moral guidelines that benefit all of us, before denialism cuts off all debate.

About Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives detail

  • Amazon Sales Rank: #527 in Books
  • Published on: 2009-10-29
  • Original language: English
  • Number of items: 1
  • Binding: Hardcover
  • 304 pages

Features

Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives Description

In this provocative and headline- making book, Michael Specter confronts the widespread fear of science and its terrible toll on individuals and the planet.

In Denialism, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter reveals that Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before. For centuries, the general view had been that science is neither good nor bad-that it merely supplies information and that new information is always beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that isn't always in our best interest. We live in a world where the leaders of African nations prefer to let their citizens starve to death rather than import genetically modified grains. Childhood vaccines have proven to be the most effective public health measure in history, yet people march on Washington to protest their use. In the United States a growing series of studies show that dietary supplements and "natural" cures have almost no value, and often cause harm. We still spend billions of dollars on them. In hundreds of the best universities in the world, laboratories are anonymous, unmarked, and surrounded by platoons of security guards-such is the opposition to any research that includes experiments with animals. And pharmaceutical companies that just forty years ago were perhaps the most visible symbol of our remarkable advance against disease have increasingly been seen as callous corporations propelled solely by avarice and greed.

As Michael Specter sees it, this amounts to a war against progress. The issues may be complex but the choices are not: Are we going to continue to embrace new technologies, along with acknowledging their limitations and threats, or are we ready to slink back into an era of magical thinking? In Denialism, Specter makes an argument for a new Enlightenment, the revival of an approach to the physical world that was stunningly effective for hundreds of years: What can be understood and reliably repeated by experiment is what nature regarded as true. Now, at the time of mankind's greatest scientific advances-and our greatest need for them-that deal must be renewed.

Tag:

Followers