Forbidden knowledge. From the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, to Frankenstein and Jurassic Park, the story of the scientist who dares to probe the unknown and unwittingly brings horrific consequences to society is as old as science itself.But for some scientists, life has begun to imitate art -- with a disturbing twist. Legitimate scientific research, they say, is increasingly being placed out of bounds by advocacy groups.
From animal rights advocates to radical feminists to religious conservatives, political or ideological agendas are increasingly taking precedence over scientific discovery, two new books assert.
In "The New Know-Nothings," author Morton Hunt, an adjunct sociology professor at the State University of New York, argues that opposing scientific research has gone mainstream.
"The idea that a group has a moral right to disrupt and halt research its members disapprove of or find offensive has diffused throughout our society," he writes.
These groups believe that the social costs of the knowledge will outweigh any possible benefits. Their beliefs are based not on science, but on political or religious convictions.
Mr. Hunt contends, "While they have a right to their beliefs, they do not have a right to force scientists to abstain from seeking knowledge that may challenge those beliefs."
"Legitimate scientific debate is great," agrees Steven Milloy, a lawyer and co-author of a new Cato Institute book called "Silencing Science." "But having a political agenda is wrong."
"Intimidating researchers is wrong. The Animal Liberation Front blowing up laboratories is wrong -- that's not scientific debate," he said in an interview.
Some examples:
- In 1994, researchers at the renowned Mayo Clinic published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, saying they had found no link between silicone breast implants and connective tissue disorders.
Lawyers representing women claiming harm from their implants were outraged. They demanded access to the medical records of all women in the Mayo Clinic's medical database, whether they were part of the study or not. Eventually, they succeeded in shutting down all epidemiological research at the Mayo Clinic.
- J. Philippe Rushton, professor of psychology at Canada's University of Western Ontario, was repeatedly harassed for his research on race-based differences. In 1996, he attended a conference in Baltimore, where he was to present a discussion of brain sizes of the different races.
Protesters surrounded the booth where Mr. Rushton's research results were displayed, chanting that he was a racist. One of the protesters managed to elude police and take Mr. Rushton's picture.
"This is for a 'Wanted: Dead or Alive' poster -- you won't be living much longer," the protester told Mr. Rushton.
- Authors cite a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals attack on the March of Dimes for its research on birth defects. PETA members dressed as bloody cats protested in front of March of Dimes headquarters, carrying a giant banner reading "March of Dimes: Stop Torturing Animals."
Other groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front, are even more aggressive. From 1986 to 1992, ALF was involved in at least 14 cases of vandalism, arson and firebombing of research laboratories and lab animal breeding facilities.
Mr. Milloy suggests there are three basic techniques for silencing science:
- Stop science before research starts. Cut off research funding, outlaw the teaching of certain scientific theories, or intimidate scientists from conducting research.
- Stop the flow of scientific information. Edit out "politically incorrect" science, hide scientific data or bury scientific studies with "inconvenient" results, and attempt to intimidate or discredit critics.
- Fill the void left by "silenced science" with your own brand of "anti-science." For example, use "consensus science" (assertions that "most" scientists agree with a theory), or junk science (exaggerated or overinterpreted results) to bolster a given agenda.
Mr. Milloy's book examines such serious subjects as cloning, which some groups oppose on religious or ethical grounds. The Food and Drug Administration has ruled that any human cloning research requires FDA approval. But Mr. Milloy believes legitimate research is being stifled by such restrictions.
"This science is going to lead to medical breakthroughs eventually," he said. "People are afraid of 'Franken-babies,' but that's not a good reason not to go ahead with research on the cloning of human cells."
As taboo research topics go, it's hard to beat the study of racial differences. Just ask Charles Murray, a social policy analyst who co-wrote the 1994 best seller, "The Bell Curve." The 800-page book exhaustively reviewed existing research on differences in intelligence scores among the races and the influence of heredity on IQ scores.
The book received scathing reviews, many of them attacking Mr. Murray personally. For example, Bob Herbert, writing in the New York Times, called the book "a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship." Others likened it to the work of neo-Nazis.
Mr. Hunt writes that while it is entirely appropriate for other scientists to differ on Mr. Murray's conclusions, vilifying his motivations or character is not acceptable. Indeed, such personal attacks damage the foundation of scientific pursuit.
Mr. Hunt asks: "Is all scientific research on average differences between races racist and socially disruptive? Is it racist and disruptive to study the greater incidence of sickle-cell anemia in blacks than in whites? ... Or the superiority of black athletes to white ones?"
Ideological suppression of scientific research is nothing new. In 1633, the astronomer Galileo incurred the wrath of the Roman Catholic Church for saying that the Earth revolved around the sun. It was not until 1992 -- more than 350 years later -- that the Vatican conceded Galileo was perhaps right after all.
So are things any worse now than they were in the Dark Ages? "I think it's just the times we live in," Mr. Milloy says. "There are more consequences for the population as a whole. This affects peoples' lives every day."
For example, silicon breast implants have been taken off the market, despite reams of scientific studies that show no connection between the implants and auto-immune diseases, he said.
By contrast, in Galileo's time, "It didn't matter to the average fellow whether the Earth revolved around the sun, or the sun revolved around the Earth."
In the end, both authors argue, scientists must continue to probe the unknown, whatever the consequences.
As physicist Edward Teller, who helped develop the first atomic bomb, once said, "There is no case where ignorance should be preferred to knowledge -- especially if the knowledge is terrible."
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.
Copyright © 1998 Citizens for the Integrity of Science. All rights reserved on original material. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.