Sometimes the Public Is Right

Scientists have no difficulty in accepting the proposition that they can be wrong. They work in an inherently uncertain enterprise, where mistakes are inevitable and where error ought to be no disgrace. On the other hand, many scientists are uneasy with what is often a closely linked proposition—that lobbyists and campaigners they perceive as being practitioners of "anti-science" can be right. Whether confronted with the supposed hazards of food irradiation or the supposed dietary benefit

Bernard Dixon

| 3 min read

Listen with Speechify

0:00

3:00

Whether confronted with the supposed hazards of food irradiation or the supposed dietary benefits of the currently most popular elements in the periodic table, scientists tend to react with reflex rebuttal. They are undoubtedly supported in this stance by a long catalog of nonsense, from laetrile to astrology, upon which the verdict of orthodox science has prevailed after much noise and emotion, time-wasting and wishful thinking. But there are important exceptions, which should encourage scientists not to dismiss so readily claims which they believe to be self-evidently absurd.

That lesson is strengthened by two recent papers in the New England Journal of Medicine by David Beflinger and colleagues (vol. 316, pp. 1037-1043, 1987) and Robert A. Rinsky and colleagues (vol. 316, pp. 1044-1050, 1987) which together confirm that minute traces of pollutants can have adverse health effects. The first report indicates that impaired cognitive development is possible in infants exposed ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!

Join for free today

Already a member? Login Here