Browsing the shelves of the science section at Barnes and Noble this weekend, I noticed the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science” by Tom Bethell. I picked it up and scanned the cover, it promised to bust a variety of science myths including global warming, evolution, cloning, etc. After flipping through the pages I decided that I would buy it and read it for two reasons: 1) It’s always a good idea to listen to those who are challenging your ideas, this commitment to a reasoned and respectful debate is the bedrock principle of this blog, and 2) a casual flip-through revealed some un-sourced factoids that were in disagreement with my understanding. I needed to read the book and investigate more fully the issues it presents in order to clarify my own understanding, as well as, potentially, to publish my dissent where the author and I may disagree.
Starting Tuesday, I am going to publish a series of chapter-by-chapter reviews on those chapters that are most relevant, and use the material in each chapter to write more about our current scientific understanding as told by Bethell as well as sources I may find elsewhere. Lest this seem like some flimsy attempt to “debunk” the contents of a book by appearing to be fair, I promise to ignore the tagline on the cover “Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. It’s time to set the record straight.” I am going to treat the book as if it were an effort by a committed science reporter to unveil the deceptions of those who would seek to use illegitimate science towards political ends (this is what the author claims on the inside, I’m going to assume that tagline was applied by a publisher’s decision in order to attract the attention of a specific target audience).
First, I thought that a brief discussion of the introduction would help to forecast for us all the journalistic and scientific integrity of the remainder of the book. The introduction starts off well, suggesting that the journalists have a role to play in science debate due to their ability to function as generalists (sounds like something I’ve said before). Then, he goes on to say that scientists, like the Nixon administration of Watergate in-fame, needs supervision by the media. He argues that journalists all-too-often accept the word of scientists or doctors because they are somehow unqualified to criticize. Then, he begins to cite specific examples of what he views as the misguided politicization of science including recent NIH funding increases, the global warming debate, Malthus’ unsuccessful predictions, the African AIDS “pandemic” (quotes Bethell’s), and the failures of the Human Genome Project to actually produce medical breakthroughs. He then argues that if scientific ideas have merit, then their funding should be handled by free-market mechanisms including Venture Captalism (VC). Bethell asserts that the government funding of science leads to wasteful spending on failures that VC firms would not have done. Finally, he attacks the idea of scientific consensus and argues that evolution is a prime example of belief-based science.
In this review, and in all those forthcoming, I am not going to respond to each point specifically, rather I will give a general response or comment. I reviewed his statements so that I can avoid quoting passages out-of-context, as well as to briefly summarize the arguments and any evidence he might offer.
I agree with Bethell’s noble aim of helping to police science, clean out its inefficiencies, and avoid dogmatic belief in an idea merely because it is the consensus-view. However, as is already obvious in this Introduction, Bethell’s aims are not merely altruistic, but instead political. But, this does not mean that his work is invalid, so I press on.
First, Bethell presents a fact and then draws a conclusion that does not logically follow. Example: The US shipped billions of condoms to sub-saharan Africa in an attempt to help reduce birthrates, the result has been that “sub-Saharan Africa has the most rapidly growing population in the world.” The implied conclusion is that these condoms have not been effective, but we are not told their effect, only that even after shipping the condoms to Africa their birthrate is still higher than elsewhere.
Then, Bethell will insert small parenthetical asides or predictions that are completely unsupported, such as “But it [a “cancer genome project”] is unlikely to advance our understanding of cancer.” He uses as evidence for this his claim that the Human Genome Project has not yielded human health benefits. Whether or not this claim is true, it has no bearing on the success of a future effort related only in name.
Probably the most egregious example of poor journalism in this introduction that does not bode well for the rest of the book is his referring to the tragedy that is befalling Africa due to AIDS and HIV as a ‘”pandemic”‘. Let me make this clear, the meaning of those quotes in Bethell’s text is the same as the statement “the supposed AIDS pandemic.” Though a future chapter review (Chapter 7) will deal with this more in-depth, calling the deaths of millions of Africans a “pandemic” is as inhumane as it is inaccurate.
The Introduction has not left me hopeful that this book will shatter any unjustly-held dogmae I may cling to, but having read the first chapter (on global warming), and marked each of the points I disagreed with for further review, I hope to gain something in my understanding rather than simply a better understanding of political propaganda. Because let me make this perfectly clear: I know exactly what the aims of Regnery Publishing are, and of the American Spectator which Bethell helps edit. I also know what I’m doing, I’m treating this book as if it were a work of true science journalism even though it is very likely intended to be a talking-points manual.
