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

[bar@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Another prime example of suppressing of controversies is the hiv-aids myth
perhaps the greatest scientific scandal since Galileo was told to keep
quiet: despite clear and overwhelming evidence that suppression of the
immune systems has nothing to do with a virus which has to this day still
has never been detected in any single person or detected and observed in
the laboratory after twenty years of searching for it,and that the tests
for it are so unspecific that anyone with a hundred other diseases
(including TB and malaria, the most common killers in Africa) can register
positive to antibodies thought (emphasize "thought") to be connected to
such a virus so that it is impossible to know if nayone has the
theoretical virus and despite the evidence and published scientific papers
establishing the clear corelation bewteen what is called aids and poverty,
malnutrition and use of immune suppressing drugs such as cocaine, heroin,
poppers, etc, in other words the stronger case is that aids is not a
disease at all but a condition. But the propagation of the hiv-aids myth
benefits the drug companies who now have a market for their old
anti-cancer fatally toxic drugs and effectively masks the fact that
western economic policies are decimating the peoples of the third world
and in particular Africa. It is easier to blame all the illnesses and
deaths on a virus ("it's not our fault, its nature") than capitalism and
imperialism.

Chris

> 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 forw
> ard 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
>
>
>
>
>
>