Science at a Crossroads

"This isn't only about the credibility of global warming."

Daniel Henninger's opinion piece in the WSJ yesterday reminds us that it is not just the proponents of global warming that have taken a credibility hit, but all of science. Even those representing the so-called hard sciences will be less trusted going forward, because while it may be true that numbers don't lie it is also obvious that those reporting the numbers sometimes do.

As a biomedical scientist at a major university I can attest that medical and hard science academics are at least as political and opinionated as the common citizen. Moreover, they have a tendency to believe the letters after their names provide some kind of a trump card in any argument even in areas well removed from their areas of expertise. That being said, it is when their specialty intersects with public policy that they are most dangerous. At this nexus there is a tremendous conflict of interest since their ability to link their work to a "crisis" or a victim class is strongly related to the financial support they can expect from government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health.

In my field the major temptation is to milk the increase in obesity for all it is worth. While obesity is likely a significant health risk and a harbinger for other medical problems, the extent to which extra lbs or inches per se is contributing is still uncertain. Obese individuals often have other attributes that may be more important than what the scale tells them, not the least of which might be their level of physical activity.

There is no easy way around this conflict of interest except through an unfettered and transparent peer-review process, an unbiased media, and continual public engagement. As we have seen with the East Anglia Climate Research scientists these checks may be compromised and/or inadequate.