The fight that matters now

“Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition” – a quote given to me by the ICCI students at UTEM

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama said:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.”¹

With this comment Barack Obama² reinforces an error that was put to rest years ago and that is causing a public health disaster not only in the United States, but in many countries where parents are no longer vaccinating their children.

This whole myth that vaccines cause autism is based on a discredited, because fraudulent, “study” published in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, in which, working from a population of 12 individuals, he establishes a connection between vaccines and autism. Besides the fact that his method has been questioned and he has been accused of elaborate fraud, science has also been unable to reproduce his results. In 2002 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study of some 537,000 individuals, in which no relationship between autism and vaccines could be found.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s scientific view of vaccines has wreaked havoc, since in 2009 his government’s policies prevented the use of multi-dose vials for the vaccines that prevent H1N1, a practice used in Europe and other countries. The reason was to reduce the use of thimerosal, a preservative that according to some groups is linked to the onset of autism. This, added to other policies, caused a drop in the supply of flu vaccines and also in their effectiveness³. It is estimated that in 2010 some 65 million people in the United States were infected with H1N1, of whom 274,000 had to be hospitalized, and 12,470 died.⁴

Is progressivism more scientifically enlightened?

There’s no denying that greater opposition to science is more often found in conservatism, especially in American religious conservatism.

Denying evolution, or global warming, is a regular part of American ultraconservative discourse.

But they are not the only political movements with anti-science positions. If the subject interests you I recommend books like The Republican War on Science. But the aim of this post is a different one.

Since progressivism supports these scientific facts, it is usually accepted that progressive positions are enlightened in scientific terms. Which is not true.

The progressive position seems to be to use science when it suits the political ideas and to ignore it completely when it doesn’t square with them.

Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas

According to Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell, in their book The Science Left Behind, progressive thinking about science rests on four myths:

1. Everything natural is good

2. Everything unnatural is bad

3. Unchecked science and progress will destroy us

4. Science is only relative anyway

The adherents of the first myth are found among those who believe in homeopathy, natural medicine, or that it’s better to go jogging barefoot, because that’s how our ancestors did it and therefore it’s good, without considering that there’s a reason those same ancestors invented shoes.

The second myth is a corollary of the first. According to it, when man interferes with something, it is no longer natural. Notice how humans, accepted as natural by the first myth, have suddenly lost all their “naturalness”. All of human intelligence and ability becomes something bad. For the progressives of the second myth any unnatural substance, like a vaccine, even if it saves millions of lives, has become something repugnant.

For the progressives of the third myth, science and technology are inherently dangerous. That’s why they oppose nuclear energy or the use of genetically modified foods⁵. These people demand that a new technology be 100% safe before it is adopted, a standard impossible to guarantee. This kind of person attacks the conservatives who don’t believe in global warming, but attacks science when it conflicts with their own ideas, accusing it of selling out to big industry, or of plotting to destroy the planet.

Behind this third myth hides an unbearable paternalism, the idea that it is possible to build a utopia dictated by their superior ethics; they believe they know what is good for all of us. If energy policy were up to them, only the rich would be able to have electricity and electric washing machines.⁶

The last myth is the most serious of all. The idea that everything is relative, that dangerous postmodernist idea. For them science is just one more opinion. This relativism puts the soft sciences on the same level as the hard ones; sociology or economics carry the same relative weight as physics or chemistry. The opinion of a doctor who recommends a vaccine is worth the same as whatever the guru of the day says. All of this erodes the value of objective research.

The fight that matters

The fight should not be left vs. right, conservatism vs. progressivism. The fight that matters now in this world, to keep it from going over the cliff of ignorance, is the fight for science.

Let me share with you the words of Mark Anderson, quoted by David Brin, on the value of science. Anderson says this after witnessing Curiosity’s landing on Mars:

Science is reality. At a time when a large and increasing fraction of the U.S. population does not “believe in” science (i.e., objectively provable reality) - or, worse, has bought into the idea that science is just one choice on the reality menu - NASA has again given concrete reason to understand that science works, and that science is not an option, not a theory, not a menu item, but instead represents the finest efforts of human minds in understanding, and addressing, objective reality.

Those on Earth who currently think that science is a political football should take note: not only are you endangering your own reputation, you are endangering the welfare of your constituents, and today, of the planet itself.

Any person or party which mocks science should be considered for what he or it is: a threat to the welfare and future of us all. Under the influence of political propagandists, misled religious zealots, and truly dangerous television and radio empires, too many people today have been led to believe that science is in some way an option to opinion.

Science is as optional as gravity. Ignorant delusion is the only real option.

It is time for all Earth inhabitants to recognize the value of science. In doing so, we will find common ground for agreeing on other important things.

NOTES