The Ehrlich Defense

Being wrong in science is never anything to be defensive about…that is how science progresses.??However, does a scientist have the right to use “science” as a shield even when they have moved on to advocacy?

Paul Ehrlich, who has been peddling population-boom doomsday scenarios since the 1960s, is back in the news because of his recent 60 Minutes interview.??For a quick summary of Ehrlich’s dire predictions and how things actually panned out, see:?

Unfortunately, for someone who has been so spectacularly wrong about humanity’s imminent demise for more than half a century, Ehrlich does not appear to have gained much humility with age.??His views, of course, have been criticized by many including in a recent WSJ editorial.

My quibble with Ehrlich today is not about his erroneous predictions, but rather I am concerned about Ehrlich’s?defense?which invokes the shield of science.

If Ehrlich had merely written a peer-reviewed article addressed to the scientific community about his theory and later the theory did not pan out, that is par for the course. However, the moment he first stepped into The Tonight Show studio (the first of 20 times!) and became an advocate for some extreme policies which ricocheted around the world, I believe he was no longer eligible to use “I am a peer-reviewed scientist” as a defense.??

This goes beyond Ehrlich.??I think any scientist who chooses to market their scientific views outside of the scientific community (ie directly market to the public via TV or social media) can no longer use the Ehrlich Defense if their views are later found to be wrong.