What is science’s rightful place?

President Obama needs to remember that science is just a tool, or set of tools. Knowledge developed using the scientific method can be used for good or ill, depending on the intent of the user. That said, the United States should be a leader in science and it’s stepson, technology.
We “win” economically by keeping a lap ahead of the other guys, and if we do not continue to do so, it will cost us.
In order to do this, The United States must do all it can to foster research, encourage students and children (and even old guys like me) to take up science as a career, or even a second career.

I think the place for science is as a framework. I think it’s important to restore the idea that using science and rational thought to look at the world is a good thing. We have to help people realize that the scientific worldview is a different paradigm than a faith-based magical thinking worldview and not just a competing religion.

I think that’s one reason why so many religious people take issue with science: they see it as a direct competitor to their faith rather than something else entirely.

B5 nitpick: the Vorlons and Shadows didn’t just ask their respective questions of humans. Vir’s response to Mr. Morden (a Shadow agent) asking the Shadows’ question is particularly memorable. (YouTube link) Londo’s is not quite so entertaining to watch in isolation, but it was a very significant plot point, as well as a turning point in Londo’s character. (It also seems like the distilled essence of at least one form of conservatism.)

I agree with the overall point about the role of science, though. I also think there’s a broader perspective in which the sciences as traditionally understood are only part of a wider field of reasoned inquiry and discussion that includes, for example, democracy (discussions of what policy we should take can’t be fully answered by science because they involve some normative questions, but they can be informed by it; we should choose policies with knowledge of their likely consequences). (H/t Carl Sagan, who expresses this view in _The Demon-Haunted World_ – which, I think, is mainly a book about the rightful place of science and science-like thought in society.)

This project is both pretentious and stupid. I find it embarrassing.

Does the computer industry publicly ask: “What is computer technology’s rightful place in society?” Do farmers publicly ask: “What is agriculture’s rightful place in society?” No, they don’t, because the questions are stupid. An industry’s or a field’s place in society is what it is. Science has no “rightful place” in U.S. society. We do not reside in a medieval kingdom where the monarch decides which artists, philosophers, inventors, or alchemists get funding. Appeals to the government might gain us more money, but that won’t be enough to change our place in society.

Most people cannot distinguish between modern science and alchemy. They lack the intelligence or the discipline to learn about science. They don’t miss this knowledge, because they don’t see it as relevant to their lives. It’s something that someone else can worry about (along with electrical power delivery, infrastructure creation and maintenance, cable TV with 999 channels, high speed communications, etc.). Because so few people understand science, many scientists feel underappreciated. Get over it. The ratio of science knowledgeable people to science ignorant people will keep declining. Non-scientists have too many other things to learn (like the 850 features of their cell phones) to bother with science. And, to be honest, don’t we all believe that at least 80% of science is junk science? If we cannot eliminate junk science, why should we expect respect and more money from the public?

Er, Dr. T, as a former member of IEEE and current one of the ACM, the answer to what you thought was a rhetorical question is “YES!”. Thoughtful professionals in all fields do ask questions like ‘What is the proper role of my field in society?’ You can repeat for all the other engineering and scientific societies which I know well enough to answer. I dare say that it applies to medicine (even I am aware of some JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine discussions) as well, though Orac can answer better there.

To the original question, I go with “Science is a tool”. I do science in my day job (sometimes, and sometimes I do engineering). Science, the method, the body of knowledge, the community of people to practice it, is a way of finding out testable, sharable, knowledge about the universe. If you’re in a position where you are making decisions about what to do which are affected by the universe (like, say, whether just dumping a chemical in a river constitutes a sufficient disposal method), I think that science is an important tool. In that respect, I’d say it is a ‘rightful place’. Iterate over other public policy and public-affecting decisions.

What you decide after science has told you that the expected increase in premature deaths/cancers/… by that policy. Well, that’s morals and/or politics. But I think we’re all much better off if we start the decision process from a basis in our best understanding of reality.

Take the example of second hand smoke. Science tells us that it increases the risk of heart and lung disease by a factor of approximately 1.3 in workers exposed to it eight or more hours a day. What we as a society do with that information depends upon what we value. Do we value the autonomy of the bar and restaurant owner more than the modestly increased risk of disease in nonsmokers who work in that owners’ bar or restaurant? Or do we value protecting workers from this risk more than the freedom of patrons to smoke and bar owners to choose to allow smoking in their bars? That is the political decision based on our values as a society. Libertarians argue that freedom of interference by government in a restaurant owner’s business trumps the risk smoking poses to workers as long as workers know about the risk and choose to accept it. proponents of smoking bans might say that workers should not be forced to make such a choice and that nonsmokers should not have to put up with the annoyance caused by a minority. Both are arguments based on what one believes and values.

You did not expect me to let this go, did you? Call me a denialist if you will, but I still believe the science of second hand smoke (SHS) is pure bullshit. If there were really something to it we should have be easily been able to determine it by now. Take for example a look at all studies where one spouse smokes and the other doesn’t. Christopher Snowdon, author of the forth coming book “Velvet Glove/Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking?” examines all the evidence for lung cancer with regard to SHShere and the results mostly point toward the NULL.
To find out what happens to researchers who go against the tobacco control agenda see here, here, and here.
More recently the concept of Third Hand Smoke was invented with this article published in the Journal of Pediatrics. The study is being used be anti-smoking groups to suggest just hanging with someone who smokes is as hazard as the Surgeon General reported. There is no risk-free level of tobacco expose, so do not hang around a smoker as it is dangerous to your health. Likewise parents who smoke outside the home are still harming their kids. Yeh right. An interview with one of the authors can be found here. Yes folks they call this science. My ass.

Like Orac and many of the correspondents in this space, I am heartened by the possibility that the Obama administration will take a less philistine approach to science than did the Bush administration. But I am always wary of political pronouncements, especially those of the open-ended sort. The president’s vow to ‘restore science to its rightful place’ without a clear statement of just what he imagines that place to be, doesn’t really mean much. Neither for that matter do nebulous locutions about ‘hope’ and ‘change’. Politicians of every stripe tend to see science as a tool of one sort or another, to be wielded for (their) maximum political advantage. Let’s hope that restoring science to its rightful place doesn’t mean willy-nilly funding of the PC fad of the week. Science isn’t only advanced by those who toe the received wisdom line, it is also advanced, sometimes by huge leaps, by skeptics who question, probe, doubt and advance alternate hypotheses.

The good news is that it certainly can’t get worse than it was during the last 8 years.

@Danimal,

So you’re a smoker who doesn’t buy into the “nonsense” that smoking is harmful. Very original. Never seen that before.

@Joseph C.: I totally buy into the fact that smoking is harmful. No doubt about that. What I do not buy into is that second hand smoke is harmful (or no more harmful then eating the McDonald’s). I object to the concept of 3rd hard smoke. That is a bunch of bullshit (see previous link). Coming from a military family where everyone smoked, there should be evidence. I do not see it in the spousal studies that Orac discounts or in the anecdotal evidence in my own family.

I totally buy into the fact that smoking is harmful. No doubt about that. What I do not buy into is that second hand smoke is harmful (or no more harmful then eating the McDonald’s).

Amazing how you cherry picked some articles to support your view but ignored the overwhelming other bit of evidence.

As for “third hand smoke,” the science is unsettled. Certainly it’s not nearly as compelling as the evidence for harm due to secondhand smoke. However, it’s not implausible on its face, and I base that assessment on my own experience–my in-laws, for example. Many months ago, my father-in-law, who’s a heavy smoker, was banned from smoking in the house. Well, he agreed not to smoke in the house, and confined his smoking to only the garage and (when it gets really cold) to a back room in the house.

Many months later, the entire house still reeks of smoke, as does all the furniture, carpeting, etc. I spent a couple of nights there over the holidays, and it was bad.

No, I’m not arguing that third hand smoke is clearly harmful based on my anecdotal experience, but that personal experience, coupled with the fact that particulate tobacco combustion products can easily be detected in materials and on surfaces in rooms after smoking, suggests to me that the concept of third hand smoke is neither unreasonable nor implausible. Research will tell if it is as harmful as secondhand smoke or not.

As for the movie, once again you’re trying to discredit the science by conflating it with how the science is used–a common tactic also used by global warming denialists, actually. The validity of the science is a separate and independent issue from what people decide to do with it. Wait, didn’t I just say that in my post, namely that the actual science is a separate issue from the use of that science to drive policy? Why, yes, I believe I did.

Can you read? What did I just write? Are you really that totally dense?

Here, I’ll repeat it again very slowly and simply: I am not arguing from anecdotal experience anything other than that experience plus the fact that solid tobacco combustion products are easily measured on many surfaces and in dust long after smoking has stopped suggest to me that the concept that third hand smoke might be harmful is neither unreasonable nor implausible. Nothing more. Science must determine whether it is harmful or not. Also, even if my father-in-law were sneaking smokes (and he probably does), that would not invalidate the argument, because every room in the house maintains the smell.

There, I can’t make it clearer or simpler than that. No doubt that won’t stop you from claiming again that I’m arguing from anecdotal evidence that third hand smoke is harmful.

You tobacco apologist trolls are very tiresome–and predictable. I figured you’d try to say I was arguing from anecdotal evidence about whether third hand smoke is harmful, and you validated my prediction nicely.

DLC: We “win” economically by keeping a lap ahead of the other guys, and if we do not continue to do so, it will cost us.

Why? Cost Americans what?

I can understand the desire to keep a lap ahead on defence technology. But all of science? How does it harm America if Americans learn from other countries? Having more minds and hands working on non-defence society makes everyone better off – say a German research group comes up with a cure for kidney failure like on Star Trek – you take one pill that costs a few dollars, and your kidney starts working again. How would that cost Americans? Americans would save billions on healthcare, along with the rest of the world. And, American medical researchers would likely study how the German pill worked, and probably come up with new innovative ideas about how to use that method to fix other health problems. Even if they didn’t, scientists in other countries would do so, and Americans could copy those new pills for improving health in the USA.

Also, if American scientists share their ideas with the rest of the world then they can benefit from the contributions of the non-American scientist. Take some earthquake researcher in California – do you really believe that they’d be better off if they never shared any of their ideas with Japanese or Italian earthquake researchers? What about if one of those guys has a really good idea, or could spot a flaw in the American researchers’ methods. How on earth could earthquake research benefit from being “a lap ahead” of most of the rest of the field? You’d be cutting down on the error-correction methods that make science as effective as it is.
And you can’t argue that American researchers are inherently superior to the Japanese or Italians, and thus could never learn from them, as so many Americans are immigrants, or the children of recent immigrants.

There is a plausible argument that one of the reasons that the USA is one of the richest countries on the planet because of the large number of people living there who mostly speak English, unlike Europe (lots of different languages) or the isolated countries of Australia and NZ. Or in other words, Americans win economically because they can share their knowledge more widely than people in many other countries. This argument implies that Americans will be even better off if they share the process of science (with the possible exception of defence, and even then sharing with American reliable allies like the British or the Australians makes sense) with people from as many other countries as possible rather than try to keep a lap ahead.

I am a Kiwi, and many of my professors at university were American or Canadian, and they were quite happy to work with the British, Australian, French, German, Singaporean and even NZ professors at my university. I am glad that they did not subscribe to the zero-sum ideas of trying to keep a lap ahead in science, but instead collaborated.

Orac: “Can you read? What did I just write? Are you really that totally dense?” Can you read? You probably did not read the 3rd hand smoke paper. The things that are suspect: Let us start with the study’s objective which states

There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.

Looking further we find funding was provided by a grant from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, a group that only funds researchers who will show SHS is harmful. This would be similar to one discounting research because it was funded by BigTobacco. The authors did a survey about people opinions regarding the harms of SHS and without evidence define 3rd hand smoke and concluded that it harmful. Dr Michael Siegel (yes, yes, I know what you think of him) says

The tobacco control movement’s warnings to the public about the dangers of thirdhand smoke highlight once again that science is no longer driving the movement. Tobacco control practitioners are warning parents that even if they smoke outside the home, leaving a coat hanging on a door is going to expose their children to toxins and harm them due to offgassing of vapors from particulate matter that has settled on the coat during smoking. Yet there is no evidence that such very low levels of exposure to tobacco smoke residue constituents is harmful.
Several months ago, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) called on measures to protect children from exposure to smokers – not merely from exposure to tobacco smoke – based on a study which purportedly showed that the breathe of smokers was toxic to children. But my analysis revealed that there was a fatal flaw in the study which invalidates the conclusion: it is highly likely that some smokers who claimed only to smoke outside the home actually do smoke in the home, at least on occasion. This would have completely explained the study result: that levels of smoke in homes with smokers who claim to only smoke outdoors are intermediate between levels in a smoke-free home and levels in a home with smokers who admit smoking inside the home.
The misinterpretation and misuse of these studies by anti-smoking groups and advocates endangers smokers because it will likely lead to efforts to bar smokers from the workplace and to prevent smokers from being around children, both of which would be tragic mistakes. If the Pediatrics study authors are correct and smokers are toxic to children even when not smoking, then this science can be used to justify measures to ban smokers from children’s presence.

Note, that he say no evidence, you say it is “neither unreasonable nor implausible.” With that I do not disagree if we start with the premise that there is no safe level of tobacco exposure. But is it science? I say no. Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine has this to say

The genius of the study is that it tries to stir up alarm about thirdhand smoke without bothering to show that such trace levels of toxins and carcinogens cause any measurable harm to children (or to anyone else). Instead the authors simply assume that thirdhand smoke is dangerous and then do a survey to see how many people are aware of this “fact.”

.
Yes that must be science. Science at its best. Sullum writes:

You can get a sense of the researchers’ method from the first sentence of their abstract: “There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.” As I noted when former Surgeon General Richard Carmona said something similar in connection with his 2006 report on secondhand smoke, this is an article of faith, not a scientific statement, since it cannot be proven or disproven. But if you start from the premise that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, it is very easy to arrive at the conclusion that thirdhand smoke (as well as fourthhand smoke, fifthhand smoke, and sixthhand smoke) is dangerous.

And you state “You tobacco apologist trolls are very tiresome–and predictable.” I for one do not consider myself a troll, instead I consider myself one of your fans (a loyal faithful reader of your sometimes long winded articles). My point is that the science of SHS and THS smoke is flawed with researcher bias and funding bias. Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, one of the authors of a paper which showed no harm due to second hand smoke and got crucified for it says.

“There are enough scientifically documented harmful effects of exposure to cigarette smoke without concocting catchy but uninformative concepts that, while likely to attract the attention of the jaded media and its audiences, confuse the important issues regarding the health effects from exposure to cigarette smoke.”

By the way I know the accepted RR for SHS smoke for both heart disease and lung cancer are between 1.25 and 1.35. What I have a problem with is the bias ways those numbers were come up with. Read Christopher Snowdon’s evidence (link in previous post). I did not cherry pick anything, if anything researchers like Stanton Glantz cherry picked their results to show immediate drops in heart attacks after smoking bans are implemented.

@dee “Do you dispute the figures? Why?” Yes, the reasons why are explained by others. Dr. Michael Siegel examination of the study can be found here. Note, Dr. Siegel is a smoking ban advicate. Another examination of the Scottish study in Spiked Magizine can be found here. I should point out that Orac also visited this study and Orac’s take on it can be found here. Note, that Orac did consider the study well done, I do not know if his opinion changed. I disagree with him.