Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?

["tony black" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One could apply this critique to almost any subject ...i.e. 'How
"historical" is history... knowing what we know of how it is written largley
by the victors etc.

Critiques of 'science' couched in an overarching sense are misguided.
'Science' in the abstract is merely a process of open-ended inquiry guided
by a 'prime directive' of self-correction. Nevertheless, that this broad
definition permits (if not formally allows or forthrightly admits) the most
fantastic fallacies (which can often propagate for decades, if not even
centuries) is, at once, evident from even a cursory glance at the history
both of the philosophy of science, and at particular compartments of science
at any particular time.

Examples in our time include the almost purely economically determined rise
of biological psychiatry, the selfish gene paradigm, and various
sub-specialities of anthropology. Certainly some of these are the result of
necessary ignorance arising from incomplete knowledge in a fledgling field.
Many, however, are clearly overlaid with political, ideological and economic
motivations.

It is also interesting to note that the history of scientific personalities
and of particular scientific discoveries and technological inventions are
rife with mythology and the most 'unscientific' accounting of themselves. [A
fine reference work here is Tony Roth's, 'Everything's Relative: and Other
Fables From Science and Technology].

Then there are the suppressed controversies over the likes of alternative
cosmological scenarios [i.e. see Eric Lerner's, 'The Big Bang Never
Happened' for a fine scientific discussion of plasma cosmologies, and an
even better discussion of the 'sociology of knoweldge' w.r.t. the history of
cosmological speculation]

In addition, naturally, there is the old standby notion that where science
meets 'value', science, though having little to say, usually pretends that
it does..or fails to recognize its limits at all.

Still, it is undeniable (IMHO) that there is, within certain broad
parameters, a true self-correcting principle guiding 'science' in the modern
era....It's just that the necessary 'conditionalities' must needs be (though
seldom are) appreciated in any discussion of its 'objectivity'.

Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabri Oncu" <soncu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:05 AM
Subject: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?


Here is some rant before the below New York Times article entitled "'A
Tragic Turn' for Science."

Being a "scientist" of some sort, I have serious doubts that "science" is
"scientific," whatever "scientific" means. My main question has always been
this: if my "scientific" performance is measured in terms of some easily
defined quantities, that is, if my scientific performance is somehow
quantified, what is there to stop me from manipulating these measured
quantities?

For example, if the number of papers I publish is what matters for my
survival, what is there to stop me from publishing the same paper a few
times with some minor twicks and twists? Or, if I am a 35 years old
assistant professor (the average age before what is called tenure in the US)
at some university and if I need to publish one more paper to keep or lose
my job, and if my family's future depends on it, what is there to stop me
from changing a few numbers in my tables in such a way that my paper gets
accepted by some journal? I know for sure that the so-called referees of my
paper have no hope of knowing whether my numbers are the result of my model
or not, unless of course, I am dumb enough to change them in such a way that
it is noticable. Well! If I am that dumb, I do not have much chance to
survive in that world anyway, so I better try other things to secure the
future of my family. And if I am not that dumb, I know that it is highly
unlikely that my refeerees have any intention to replicate my work to check
my numbers for two reasons:

1) If they do that, and that becomes a tradition, others may start to check
their numbers in the same way and things may go out of control: after all,
in this "science" business, at least as it is conducted in these days,
almost everybody "lies" here and there and some of these lies are
unforgivable by any standard.

2) The pay off of replicating someone else's work is next to zero, if it is
not negative. Nobody in the academic world gives you any credit for
replicating other people's work in the first place, and, secondly, if you
keep replicating other people's work and reporting their mistakes, you have
no hope of surviving in that world, as is the case in every other world.

This was where dear late Mark Jones, the initiator of this list, and I had
major disagreements:

He used to take science seriously whereas I have never been able to do that.

Best,

Sabri

++++++++++++


Clone Scandal: 'A Tragic Turn' for Science
New York Times, December 16, 2005
By GINA KOLATA

Last May, a stunning research paper in Science, one of the world's most
respected scientific journals, instantly changed the tenor of the debate
over cloning human embryos and extracting their stem cells. A team of South
Korean scientists reported in the paper that they had figured out how to do
this work so efficiently that the great hope of researchers and patients -
to obtain stem cells that were an exact match of a patient's - seemed easily
within sight.

But that rosy future has been cast into doubt with the statement last month
by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who led the team that wrote the paper, that it
contained fabricated evidence. Questions have also been raised about earlier
research and a new debate has begun.

Scientists and ethicists caution that the full story is not in, but they are
staggered by how the research has unraveled so far.

"This is a tragic turn," said Laurie Zoloth, director of the Center for
Bioethics, Science and Society at Northwestern University. Stressing that
she considers Dr. Hwang innocent until proven guilty, she asked, however,
whether the edifice of stem cell research was built on sand.

"We depend entirely on the truthfulness of the scientific community," Dr.
Zoloth said. "We must believe that what they are showing us and what they
say has been demonstrated is worthy of our concern and attention."

The South Korean story, Dr. Zoloth added, raises questions about whether the
science is good. "Good as in true and real and morally worthy of our
funding," she explained. "That is so most especially in this twilight sort
of terrain with a lot of open questions that people disagree about. At least
we thought that the step-by-step slow technical achievements had placed the
science on a trajectory."

"Is this our version of W.M.D.?" Dr. Zoloth said.

A vocal opponent of cloning human embryos voiced a similar concern.
"Certainly, if these reports are true, it's a tragedy for science," said
Nigel Cameron, president of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human
Future at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

He said the episode showed that stem cell research and cloning to create
human embryonic stem cells, "is a hype balloon and it's been pricked." Not
so, said the ethicist Arthur Caplan, an outspoken supporter of stem cell
research. "We know that in science, speed kills if you go fast, and that's
what the South Koreans did," he said. "It's also clear that they will do
whatever it takes to right this ship. At the end of the day, critics of stem
cell research will try to use this, but they won't get very far. People
bending the rules in other countries doesn't reflect badly on us."

The promise of cloned human embryonic stem cells remains, said Dr. George
Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston.

"The goal is still there and the medical value is still largely theoretical
but no less than before."

Dr. Cameron, however, said the political implications of the South Korean
scandal are huge.

When it seemed that the South Koreans had taken a giant leap forward in stem
cell research, he noted, "we panicked into thinking that we have to join
in." Politicians and patient groups argued that cures were around the corner
if scientists could get the needed support. States poured money into stem
cell programs.

The collapsing South Korean claims, Dr. Cameron added, made him ask:
"Where's the beef? Where are those cures? Why is it that there is no private
money going into this research? The business community values it at zero."

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of anti-abortion activities at the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that he has argued for
some time that the stem cell proponents were exaggerating the state of the
science and misleading the public about scientific accomplishments. They
promised cures that, if they ever came, would not come any time soon. But
Mr. Doerflinger said that when he tried to point out what he saw as
misleading claims, " no one would listen."

Now, he said, with the collapse of some of the South Korean scientists'
research, the situation may change.

"In one sense, this puts us back to where we were before May of 2005, when
there still was some uncertainty about whether this would work at all," Mr.
Doerflinger said. "In another sense it does illustrate in my mind how hype
and ambition have gotten ahead of the science."

"How am I going to exploit it?" he said. "You don't have to. It's just
speaking for itself."



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search
Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top