Science, Scientists, and Sea Lions

There is a very disturbing article in today’s New York Times about sea lion pups in California. Warming ocean waters, presumably a consequence of both climate change in general, and human activities affecting ocean water directly, are driving fish from shallow to deep water. Mother sea lions are following the food, and leaving young pups to fend for themselves for longer than most can manage. The result is a heart-wrenching horde of nearly starved pups washing up on beaches, straining at resource limitations for their rescue and rehabilitation.

The article is all about the plight of the pups, and is almost startling in its inattention to the root causes of the problem. But we know what those are.

Or do we? There may be no real doubt about direct human involvement in, and responsibility for, climate change; the semblance of doubt may simply be cover for profiteering as usual. But to the extent that there is any actual remaining doubt, it is attributable to disrespect of science by non-scientists, and deceitful (or benighted) legerdemain by scientists themselves. Both problems are generalizable, with reverberations into my work almost daily.

Disrespect of science is in some ways the more pernicious, but also the more forgivable of these two menaces to actionable understanding, and it is both for the same reason: religion, or faith. Much of the population has learned some version of absolute truths that cannot be tested or proved, and should not be questioned. At best, this creates a “no fly zone” for science, implying that the best way we know to get reliable answers is impermissible for certain questions.

In addition, there are direct contradictions between literal reading of almost any scripture, and modern scientific understanding. Major religions have always reconciled themselves to such matters in the fullness of time; there is no denying heliocentrism, for instance. But in a modern age of religious fractionation, cyberspatial echo chambers, and huge populations, the direct control of any “church” is not what it once was. The rank and file practitioners of any given faith may be less inclined to swap out a literal interpretation for its figurative counterpart, and thus wind up needing to choose between science and religion. Science generally loses that fight.

I have addressed that topic before, and won’t belabor it here. Suffice to say there is at least a hint of hypocrisy in using Google to navigate through cyberspace to gather evidence and/or cultivate connections opposing the veracity of science. The use of products of the scientific method in pursuit of arguments against the scientific method is, forgive me, oxymoronic- give or take the “oxy.”

But again, that’s the more forgivable threat. The greater is the sabotage of science by scientists, aided and abetted by the voracious appetite of modern media for provocation, even if it requires some prevarication. Perhaps especially then.

In the case of the climate change propagating the plight of those sea lion pups, there is a massive, global consensus among the truly expert about the looming calamity of climate change, and the clear causes of it. That not all scientists agree entirely is fine. But that some look preferentially only at evidence pointing in the direction they favored (or were paid to favor) at the start- is not science. I could call it less flattering things, but let’s just say it is self-indulgence. The promulgation of both views- the prevailing consensus of scientists based on a considered examination of evidence in all directions; and the contrarian views of those who only ever shopped for evidence supporting the view they held at the start- as if they deserve equal respect is a miscarriage of the role journalism should play. Yet it prevails.

In my world, this is reflected in the endless parade of competing claims about diet. All too often, these translate into best-selling books that further fracture the population into disciples of some particular, self-proclaimed messiah. I have argued for a separation of church and plate, but we seem ever more impelled the other way, with opposing dietary views garnering invective, and zealous hostility.

My in-box is populated almost every day with missives from ardent proponents of various ways of eating. The more interesting among them are articulate, passionate, steadfast, and in a particular way, remarkably knowledgeable. But that particular way is wayward. They know, and share with me, every arcane bit of evidence ever published supporting their position. They are oblivious to, ignore, or discredit any bit of evidence that goes the other way. Among them are several whose arguments are comparably rich and well researched, and utterly at odds with one another. There is no way, in other words, that both can be “right.”

These correspondents, when they do look at countervailing evidence, do so only to skewer it. I have no problem when study flaws are profiled; all studies are flawed. But there is a problem when the methods of critique are selectively applied based on whether the study tells you what you wanted to hear.

By disrespecting science, scientists have invited this abuse. When those trained to know better pretend that looking selectively at evidence is “research,” there is no reason to hope the public will maintain a higher standard. The hard part of research is not tracking down the views of those who espouse what we want to be true. The hard part is reading what you prefer not be true as diligently, and with willful suspension of bias. The truth tips with the weight of evidence, not with the one study most conducive to titillating headlines.

Insult is inevitably appended to this very injurious cascade. To promote any shiny, new epiphany, the prior understanding must be denigrated. Scientists exploiting this formula routinely imply, when they aren’t saying outright, that everyone who came before was, in essence, a moron. The new messiah of truth- regarding diet, or climate, or whatever- sees the truth to which all predecessors were blind.

This is harmful in a lesser and a greater way. The lesser way is that it sows divisiveness. The greater way is that it may contribute to the death of expertise, and the extermination of trust. If on any given day a renegade scientist can come along to tell us that all prior scientists were nitwits, what’s to prevent a successor from saying the same about him or her tomorrow? Nothing, of course. Once scientists teach the public to trust neither scientists nor science, we are all hoisted on that same petard.

It’s a shame, because while always imperfect, science is powerful and empowering. Genuine understanding issues from it, and understanding is often prerequisite to overcoming: climate change, obesity, hunger, chronic disease, infectious disease.

We have incontrovertible evidence of the power of science at our very fingertips. If you are reading this on a computer after I typed it on mine, published it on-line, and beamed it through cyberspace- you have cause to know something of the power of the scientific method.

In the area of diet, nutrition, and lifestyle as medicine, I have an idea, and a plan, for remediating the toxic discord. I think we can reveal the massive, global, evidence-based consensus about healthy living that has been veiled from the public for decades, presumably to line someone’s pocket. The Union of Concerned Scientists is devoted to a related enterprise in other domains.

But the problem of selective representations of evidence and hyperbolic headlines is greater. The problem of treating scientific advance like Ping-Pong, with wide swings this way and that based on isolated actions, rather than following the incremental path of evidence in the aggregate- is bigger than any one topic. The damage done by scientists themselves undermining the credibility of one another, and thus, science- is far more insidious.

We are paying dearly for it. So, too, are the sea lions.

-fin

David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP

Director, Yale University Prevention Research Center; Griffin Hospital
Editor-in-Chief, Childhood Obesity

President, American College of Lifestyle Medicine
Founder, The GLiMMER Initiative

Follow at: LinkedIN; Twitter; Facebook
Read at: INfluencer Blog; Huffington Post; US News & World Report; About.com
Author: Disease Proof