It's not Science Denial but the Prostitution of Science
Michael Specter raises an important issue regarding the role of science in society. He is right in the sense that we have made tremendous progress insofar as health is concerned - indicated by an increase in the average lifespan of humans today. He points to the potential and the possibility of an optimized use of science today. The example he gives is injecting vitamin A into rice and feeding famished countries. And in part, I agree that science can help these global concerns. The barrier to this optimization of science, for Specter, is what he calls science denial; the denial of facts. We are in an epidemic of fear and reject the progress made in science. But I think he oversimplifies the problems surrounding the matter.
The issue isn't just a matter of aversion or fear of big government, "big pharma" corporations, and a reactionary turn towards "herbal" medicines, vitamins, and "organic" foods. But rather a growing understanding that science has been bastardized and prostituted for marketability and profit. The integrity of science and the scientific method has been jeopardized by politics and profit-motivated businesses. And because of this growing understanding, people seek alternative methods to address their health concerns. He calls it "big placebo." Although I think he is right to some degree, he mocks "herbal medicines," "organic" foods, and the consumption of vitamins, all in one swift jest by saying it just gives you "dark piss." The "dark piss" is primarily a function of those vitamins and supplements we take. And yes, it does give you "dark piss" but really if you think about those who do take those vitamins, the body will consume the vitamins that it needs and pisses out the rest. If you don't need that much then the unused or unnecessary vitamins get pissed out - voila "dark piss." So he is right, but undermines the function of the body. Nonetheless, our bodies get what we need from vitamins and flush out the rest. They are truly "supplemental."
He further goes on to dismiss "herbal" or alternative medicines and "organic" food calling it a useless debate because it is a "political" divide. To an extent he's right, but he makes a false dichotomy. The divide in people who eat "organic" food and those who use "herbal" medicines against those who don't care is not a division in science. The polarization of people is a byproduct of the growing lack of ethics and health concern of the people by the industry. We are simply becoming more and more aware of it. The pharmaceutical industry, the meat and produce industry, have all used contemporary western psychology to appeal to the masses and then played on it for marketability. We can thank Freudian psychology and its abuse by his nephew Edward Bernays (a documentary by the BBC called, "The Century of the Self " portrays this point in American advertising quite well). One of the more popular themes is the "bigger is better" mentality. Grow bigger chickens, bigger cows, bigger vegetables, plumper fruit, make it all bigger and prettier - American people like pretty things and more bang for their buck. Corporations are willing to use science to accomplish this - genetic engineering, insertion of hormones, steroids, etc. etc. What's happening is that people are catching on to the cut corners, the manipulations and lack of control by businesses. It has created a sense of disgust. And because it seems so unrecognizable a practice we have the movement toward "natural", "organic", "herbal" products. The guy points out that even those are products of science. And indeed, they are. We have cultivated our food to the point of our fancy. We can make seedless watermelons. Corn is not naturally yellow. Much has been altered by science. Well, more or less, a better understanding of evolution and using it for our benefit actually. A great example are dogs. Dogs are not naturally the way they are - they have been bred over and over again to meet our standards of what we think a dog should be - temperament, physique, and etc. We do the same with our produce and meat. So yes, science is there. But he conveniently skims out the distasteful things the industry does to our food. And this is the abuse and prostitution of science for marketability and profit that I mentioned. So in reality, I don't think that it's a fear of big government or "big pharma," and a lack of faith in science but rather a growing sense of disgust in the ethics and practices the pro-business, pro-profit, that the present economic model has encouraged, which includes the prostitution of science.
The distaste that Michael Specter mentions is the present economic shift in capitalizing on that "organic", "herbal", "green movement." And he makes it a social issue calling them those "organic" elite; a food bourgeoisie. I think this is a misguided judgment. There is nothing wrong with people being picky about the food they put into their bodies. The present "fear" or shift in attitudes towards science is not a distrust in the institution of science itself but its abuses. The role of science today has not been for the betterment or progress of humanity. The role of science has been the "wing-man" to business. The corporations are the pimps, science the whore, and we the customer. Science has been manipulated, compromised, and statistically twisted to facilitate the advertising mechanism. Science is, however and thankfully, a broad broad term for many many disciplines. The academic community has preserved the scientific method and perpetuates its virtues. The failure is the incompatibility of scientific rigor into positive transitions and uses for a pro-business economic society. With the world leaders all playing economic chess games with each other, at the expense of the well-being of its people, science has not reached its optimal potential.
A fundamental shift in the use of science and its role in contemporary society is necessary. Presently, it seems there is a misguided use of science in the economic model of governance and business, i.e. a misappropriation of funds for research and its use in the public and private social sphere. Science should not be tainted by economic gains. In the end, I agree that if we maintain the virtues and integrity of science it is possible to make the world, to be cliche, a "better place." In other words, science can be a tool and method to resolve global crises. But rather than phrasing the issue as a matter of "denial," I think it would be more appropriate to phrase the matter as an issue of misappropriating science in a pro-business economic model. The people are simply reactionary and seek other avenues.
Reader Comments