Obama & Science

[Dr. Shane]

Consensus Science: The Rise of a Scientific Elite

On March 9, President Barack Obama ordered that federal tax money be used to promote medical research through harvesting the stem cells of, and thus destroying, human embryos. There has been much discussion about the medical ethics of this order and the government's increased power to destroy human life for "scientific" progress, but in reality these debates, while important, drew attention away from a serious analysis of the words of the president's speech. His order was actually a directive for "restoring scientific integrity," and stem cells served as the needed pretext.

The full speech provides evidence that Mr. Obama's words were carefully selected to exploit the accelerating drift of the scientific community's upper echelons from determining "scientific validity" based on rigorous observation and experiment, to basing it on consensus authority. Thus, preserving "scientific integrity" would not mean keeping the scientific process from going awry, but keeping scientific outcomes in line with policy...

The Rise of Consensus Science

The collective opinion of scientists in a particular field on topics where there is general agreement is called the "consensus" of those scientists. A consensus can range from scientific areas that are well supported by experiments, all the way down to areas where nothing has been established. Rarely are appeals to scientific consensus used in areas where experimental evidence is strong, but they are often favored on subjects where the science is weak to nonexistent (such as the reality of extraterrestrials or parallel universes) and, especially, on divisive social issues that need scientific input. Scientifically speaking, a serious problem arises when advocates wield "scientific consensus" as if it were a valid scientific argument that carries the same weight as experimentally-derived evidence--a practice derisively called "science by consensus" or "consensus science."

...Nicolas Wade, a researcher on scientific fraud, adds, "Scientists are trained to believe that research is an entirely objective process....That makes them all the more vulnerable to people who deceive, because they don't have their guard up." Ideally, scientific results should be experimentally verified, but as a practical matter this rarely happens, as Sharon Begley observed: "Unfortunately, although the ability to replicate results is one of science's strongest defenses against fraud, few experiments are repeated exactly....As a result, fudged data that conform to prevailing scientific wisdom...can easily slip into print."

Scientists' limited expertise to raise valid questions outside their specialty, dependence on collaboration, naïve trust, and limited resources to reproduce experiments are all longstanding problems in the day-to-day operation of science. Advocates of consensus science capitalize on exploiting these problems, not working to fix them.

Some scientists, of course, do question the prevailing wisdom of "anointed authorities" and are usually met head-on by the consensus authority--but not in a laboratory. For example, in 1993 early critics of the man-made global warming consensus were called before congressional subcommittees, "setup" to look foolish, "flayed," "hammered," and then either got the consensus authorities' message to shut up or "got the ax" (i.e., were fired) for being "philosophically out of tune." The proper forums for scientific debate are science labs and the literature. The real purpose of such intimidating treatment is always to end debate.

Illustrating classic consensus authoritarianism, in 1993 Mr. Al Gore said of global warming that there is "no longer any doubt worthy of recognition" and "only a few odd scientists" doubt the consensus. When asked again in 2009 about the scientific validity of his opinion, he said, "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse....It's not a matter of theory or conjecture." He added that it's "kind of silly" to keep debating the science and that "the debate is over."10 Using the power of consensus science and a relentless media campaign, any hypothesis can be established as fact and few scientists will dare criticize the actual scientific underpinnings--thus, the debate is over.

The Dominance of Atheism among the Scientific Elite

When debate ends, the bias and prejudice of only one side will prevail even in the ranks of "objective" scientists. Candidly describing fellow scientists, the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard said, "Our [scientists'] ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical and interchangeable robots, is self-serving mythology."

Does Mr. Obama think that the experts he wants Americans to "listen to" will rise above their own prejudices where other mortal scientists have failed? Can they really be neutral toward God? Scientific studies suggest they cannot. The percentage of atheists is highest among members of the National Academy of Sciences and other elite scientific policy-making groups, with only 7 percent believing in God. University faculty are self-identified as atheist over five times more (even higher among scientists) than the general public; believe religion is less important and attend religious services less; and have positive feelings toward atheists, but have negative feeling for only one religious group--evangelical Christians...

What "Listen to the Experts" Really Means

Based on this policy, the president made plain the actions he expects people to take: "letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient." In context, "listening to what they tell us" means more than paying attention or seeking to understand--it means obeying what is said. It is much clearer now that what Mr. Obama meant when he said he would "restore science to its rightful place" in his inaugural speech was really unchallengeable dominance of an amoral scientific elite over the public and any dissenting scientific views.

This is in keeping with what many elite scientists deeply believe, as reflected in the Scientific American article "Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong." In it, science sociologist Harry Collins illustrated the "hubris" of ordinary people questioning scientists: "Parents believe that even though doctors assure them that vaccines are safe, those doctors may be wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are entitled to throw their own judgment into the mix." Will parents remain entitled to their own judgment once science is fully restored to its "rightful" place?

This tyranny of the experts is not just a future possibility. In January, the Texas State Board of Education debated whether the teaching of evolution's weaknesses should be retained in Texas public schools' science curriculum. Board members who sided against teaching weaknesses "cited the need to respect the work of the experts, according to the [Dallas] Morning News, with Mary Helen Berlanga commenting, 'We need to stay with our experts and respect what they have requested us to do'….Similarly, Rick Agosto was quoted in the San Antonio Express-News (January 23, 2009) as saying, 'I have to consider the experts.' "Even public officials who lack the proper credentials must submit to the judgment of elite scientists and show proper deference to their greater knowledge.

Countering Scientific Elitism

How can someone combat a scientific system that favors the few, the powerful, the elite? First, when confronted with policies based on the "scientific consensus," point out that "consensus" is not a valid scientific argument. It reintroduces bias into science and has always been used when the underlying evidence is weak. Urge a return to science based on experiments and observations.

Second, remember the atheistic bias of elite scientists and maintain a healthy skepticism of their opinions--particularly on broad social policies and medical ethics...

Third, support those groups that maintain independent oversight and review. The Institute for Creation Research is one such group. It receives no governmental, educational, or industrial funding--but ICR continues to expose the scientific weaknesses of naturalistic science.

Why did Mr. Obama choose the language he did in making his embryonic stem cell decision? Clearly, not so much for the research value of embryonic stem cells. The real goal is in due course to empower a "credentialed and experienced" scientific elite "restored to their rightful place" that come to a "consensus" of what is scientifically acceptable and make citizens "listen to what they tell us." With that kind of power, death to embryos is just the first step. Who knows where it will end?

[text taken from link]