Bias with a basis?

In Berkeley, even objective science is political

By James Fullmer
From the November 2004 Print Edition

The values of “logic, empiricism, rationalism, and indeed truth” are being replaced by the “forces of politics, commerce, and religion.” This is the gloomy outlook put forth by a group of scientists and bureaucrats who came to Cal this past month. In a discussion entitled “Bush Science,” these men attempted to show that the Bush administration has spent the past four years distorting science for its own political purposes.

There is an element of truth to their assertions. Science is indeed being politicized, and this is a problem. After all, what is science but the search for objective truth? And how can objectivity be attained when political goals enter the equation and conflict with the purity of science and methodology? The mixing of the two is certainly bad news.

So who is to blame for this politicization of science? The “Bush Science” panelists would have us believe that it is George W. Bush. If he is to blame for the divisions in our country, for the war being waged against us by Islamic terrorists, and for virtually everything else that is wrong in this world, why stop there? Throw the corruption of science into the mix as well. But the problem is not George W. Bush. The problem is that far too many scientists are contaminating their research with their own leftist ideologies.

Take, for example, a recent article in the Berkeley Science Review, entitled “The Health of Nations.” The authors of this article, Audrey Huang and Chris Weber, examine the problem of infectious diseases, particularly HIV and malaria, in developing countries. Noting that America has much lower rates of fatality from such diseases, Huang and Weber conclude that we must provide our high-quality drugs to the rest of the world. The means to do this? Eliminate the patent system and send more money.

There’s just one problem with this conclusion: it’s wholly unnecessary. In 1972, EPA head William Ruckelshaus banned DDT, a pesticide that he felt had the potential to do damage to humans. These findings were based on animal tests; never mind that humans, unlike lab rats, would not be force-fed DDT 10 times a day. Ruckelshaus, under pressure from anti-pesticide environmentalist lobbies, made his decision without a great deal of scientific evidence and against the counsel of his own advisors. The evidence we now have shows that cases of malaria in the developing world skyrocketed after the DDT ban; the Web site JunkScience.com estimates that 87 million malarial deaths have occurred since 1972 as a direct result of the ban.

Apparently, the use of DDT is an effective way to wipe out the mosquitoes that carry malaria, but liberal ideology automatically assumes that the use of pesticides is wrong. Because of this, left-leaning scientists who examine the problem of malaria and other diseases simply will not consider the possibility that a pesticide like DDT may be the solution. Lifting the ban on DDT is not considered an option, and with that precondition, researchers come to the conclusion that the best way to relieve the suffering of developing countries is to end the patent system and make drugs cheaper.

Ultimately, what is Huang and Weber’s goal but to oppose the capitalist elements of the patent system by using disease in the developing world as justification? The legitimacy of such an assertion in a science journal is questionable at best. Objective science does not work toward a political or social agenda while ignoring other options.

We all have preconceptions of how the world works. It is an important ability of humans to learn and to remember what we have learned. From our experience, we discover truths about the world, and from these truths we can make predictions for the future. However, when these “truths” are really not truths at all but preconceived notions without factual basis, it is impossible to make sound decisions. And when this happens in the laboratory, science ceases to be the search for truth and instead becomes the attempt to find a solution within an arbitrary ideological framework. This is not empiricism, but faith-based science at its worst. Yes, those on the left are often the worst perpetrators of the skewed science they like to attribute to the Bush administration.

Scientists have a professional obligation to be as unbiased and rational as possible. Certainly all are trained to follow these ethics, and most probably feel that they are indeed unbiased. But scientists, like all humans, are fallible, and all too often they allow their personal ideologies to shape their research. Politicians cannot avoid incorporating politics into their decisions. Scientists, on the other hand, have been given the charge of discovering truths about the world. They should not let their own politics interfere with that important search.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot