George Monbiot is lamenting the war on science.
The attack on climate scientists is now widening to an all-out war on science.
This idea of a war on science is very popular with the left. But I don’t see it. Rather I see politicised debate with some using science as a weapon and scientists as human shields. But I suspect that Monbiot isn’t helping his cause much by these comments.
Distrust has been multiplied by the publishers of scientific journals, whose monopolistic practices make the supermarkets look like angels, and which are long overdue for a referral to the Competition Commission. They pay nothing for most of the material they publish, yet, unless you are attached to an academic institute, they’ll charge you £20 or more for access to a single article. In some cases they charge libraries tens of thousands for an annual subscription. If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals which publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-Century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.
But there’s a deeper suspicion here as well. Popular mythology – from Faust through Frankenstein to Dr No – casts scientists as sinister schemers, harnessing the dark arts to further their diabolical powers. Sometimes this isn’t far from the truth. Some use their genius to weaponise anthrax for the US and Russian governments. Some isolate terminator genes for biotech companies, to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Some lend their names to articles ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies, which mislead doctors about the drugs they sell. Until there is a global code of practice or a Hippocratic oath binding scientists to do no harm, the reputation of science will be dragged through the dirt by researchers who devise new means of hurting us.
I’m very suspicious of industry codes of practice – they usually facilitate collusion against the consumer. The solution to the problem Monbiot identifies is good old-fashioned scepticism. You shouldn’t believe someone simply because they are a scientist.
Actually, I think the biggest war on science has occurred in the primary/high school system. If you destroy your maths and science base, this will do you far harm than certain areas being attacked by the government and a few corrupt scientists. Maybe that doesn’t matter much for Australia where we can just get engineers and scientists via immigration, but it should be a really big deal for the US which relies on high technology for its wealth much more than Australia does.
conrad
16 Mar 10 at 7:10 am
When Monboit accepts the consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms he can start lamenting the war on science.
That’s a less contested propositon than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Karl Kessel
16 Mar 10 at 9:58 am
When Monboit accepts the consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms he can start lamenting the war on science.
.
we could make a list. It seems that the only “scientific” findings that the Left like are global warming, because it has negative consequences for industry; and evolution, because it has negative consequences for conservative Christians. So here are other scientific facts that I’d like to see Monbiot and his ilk accept.
* genetically modified foods are safe (thanks Karl)
* capitalism and free trade result in increased national standards of living
* phonics is the best way to teach reading
* poverty is decreasing worldwide
* rapists are more likely to be poor
* smoking pot causes mental illness
* smoking pot is bad for your lungs
…
daddy dave
16 Mar 10 at 10:13 am
* life begins at conception
C.L.
16 Mar 10 at 10:15 am
He has a point in the first par, to be fair. The IP racket is getting ridiculous, and not just in academic journals.
skepticlawyer
16 Mar 10 at 11:15 am
* Safety of nuclear energy.
ken n
16 Mar 10 at 11:54 am
“There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you?”
This is a question every used car salesman knows and uses. Not worthy of Monbiot.
ken n
16 Mar 10 at 11:55 am
I think the journals are ripe for a fall. In an Internet age the idea that paper is so expensive that only the best can be published is silly. The industry is over due in moving to a model where much more is published and peer review happens transparently afterwards by large numbers in the field, rather than a select few. For this wikipedia isn’t the right model put it points in the right direction.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
16 Mar 10 at 1:13 pm
dd – don’t forget nuclear energy… and how lefties often favour “alternative medicine”.
The fact is, they try and take the high-ground as rational scientific thinkers, but ultimately they just support stuff that conforms to their self-loathing world-view that we only ever make things worse. It’s odd how “propgressives” are so anti-progress.
Fleeced
16 Mar 10 at 1:58 pm
I’m an immunologist at an academic institution and its true that if we don’t have a subscription with a particular journal then $30 is the least you can expect to pay, usually more like $50 or $60.
However, there are online open-access publishers like Plos and BioMed Central that I believe are open to the public.
Chumpai
16 Mar 10 at 4:11 pm
Sinclair, you say that you are “very suspicious of industry codes of practice – they usually facilitate collusion against the consumer.”
Just what does this bullshit mean? Most codes of practice are designed to protect the consumer from industry.
Eg building codes
rog
16 Mar 10 at 6:49 pm
so you say…
Sinclair Davidson
16 Mar 10 at 6:51 pm
One ‘war on science’ is being led by that bug eyed fraudster Monckton, the ex never been Nobel laureate and Thatcher advisor
rog
16 Mar 10 at 6:52 pm
the ex never been Nobel laureate and Thatcher advisor
That would mean he is an Nobel laureate.
dover_beach
16 Mar 10 at 7:06 pm
If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals which publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-Century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.
Has Monbiot ever heard of open access publishing? Why should journal houses be so restrictive in sharing research – to make buckets of money while scientists scrounge around for funds and grants. Elsevier is shocking and the price hikes causes librarians to stop ordering, scientists started open access mostly at their own expense(it costs to publish under open access but at least the information is freely available). IP laws needs to be seriously re-examined because these are stifling research. If you don’t believe me , just do some searching in biomedicine and see how many “patent pendings” emerge. This is just big business cornering an area of research, it has nothing to do with science or technology. Patents should apply to products made, not products proposed.
BTW, there are studies showing that some GM foods could be toxic, you just don’t hear about these unless you go looking. I’m not against GM food but I am definitely skeptical of the claim that these are safe.
John H.
16 Mar 10 at 8:34 pm