For the sake of balance...

Having been inspired by Mondays Infinite Monkey Cage programme on Radio 4... it got me to thinking if there is a place for balance in science, the telling of opposing views on the same subject. My initial thought was- of course science has balance, it is open to all views and all ideas, it is the way science moves forward. After a while I began to think, actually balance is not really the nature of science, and instead depends on at what point the current research has reached.

So let me explain myself... In new research, the theories and experiments formed are variable and often answering different questions. In this way, science is balanced, different research on the same subject is fairly viewed and reviewed and criticised. The difference is I suppose, that science is always moving toward an end point, a consensus. After a while, experimental design and results are confirmed by multiple sources, multiple times. I guess it's like a mist clearing, when through science we gain clarity. Although nothing is 'proved' in science, research overtime can lead us to the best possible explanation. So let's take 'global warming', the consensus among scientists is that a) the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, b) Increased CO2 in the atmosphere correlates to the earth warming and c)  Various human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This is commonly accepted by any reputable scientist, and by consensus, I mean a large majority, a majority so large that you would be hard pressed to find any scientist apposed to this theory.

When I think back to my GCSE English teacher explaining that we must be 'unbiased and present both sides of the story' I wonder whether we can ever really apply this to science. Of course this works in a medium such as newspaper and press but as I stated above, finding scientists apposed to the majority view is difficult, and is it really valuable anyway? This kind of conflict of views in science is often put to the test through the media. It seems to be a favourite of various News programs to create this so called balance. However, providing Dr xx of the department (unknown) of University of Timbuktu to debate with a reputable climatologist is hardly balance. Even worse, when they bring on an politically motivated, emotive speaker who clearly has no grasp of simple facts, which is often the way when it comes to climate change issues. I despair at the number of times I've watched modest, intelligent scientists calmly communicate the facts which are soon bulldozed by ignorant, self righteous and often very loud dimwits..... I'm left feeling... that's not fair. It's not fair because the public are being exposed to incorrect, unjustified views, this is not balance but instead quite harmful. This issue of a warming world as a result of human activity should be taken as red, not the 'what do you believe then?' attidude taken by many people in the public domain.

So I guess I'm answering my question to ' is there balance in science?' as- sometimes.... But more importantly, balance in the media when science is involved isn't really balance at all. Science is logical, theories are posed, experiments constructed, observations recorded and conclusions made. If research is still in its infancy then differing theories maybe argued but if there is numerous studies to suggest a key fact or aspect then with the use of logic a consensus will be formed. The problem comes with a new wave of media coverage that depicts 'science verses the world'. It is sciences responsibility to answer questions that everyone is wondering, even non-scientists. What I don't understand is when people are quite comfortable to sit in the knowledge that the earth is in fact round (information discovered by scientists) yet flip out when it comes to an issue such as 'global warming' purely because the implications of such an issue may mean they will have to change their own behaviours to prevent exacerbation of the situation.

An excellent tweet by Professor Brian Cox in response to dimwit A that questioned Prof. Cox's 'fanatical' view on man made global warming and how various 'eminents' disagreed. He simply replied 'Evidence dear boy. Scientists don't hold views, they just keep plugging away trying to understand the data. The rest is politics.' Views are for politicians, science is a celebration of reason. So instead of arguing with someone who clearly doesn't know the facts for the sake of balance I instead urge you to take a look at the evidence it really does speak for itself...

Public ignorance of science, is it dangerous?

I suffer from mild annoyance at the general public for misinterpretation of scientific issues and evidence. Ignorance is a disease that is steadily growing in the UK if not the world. Don't get me wrong, I don't use the word ignorance lightly or arrogantly, I will be the first to admit I am ignorant of many things, even though I strive to correct this. There are just too many things to know in the world for such a small life time. However, we can always endeavour to learn the facts of issues we are interested in, in order to make sound judgment. The point at which my mild annoyance turns to anger is when people ignorant of the truth make judgments that put not only their lives but also the lives of others at risk.

Recently, the occurrence of measles outbreaks in the UK has rocketed with nine children in Brighten diagnosed with this potentially fatal, extremely infectious disease in the last couple of weeks. The MMR vaccine controversy was widely reported, and with it the huge body of evidence that suggested there is no link between MMR and autism. Yet through misinterpretation and ignorance, some of the public are refusing to inoculate their children based on this claim. I understand the confusion over the subject, the initial health scare was the outcome of a great scientific misconduct that should never have been published. However, the scientific consensus has been for a long time, that there is no evidence to link MMR to autism, based on the numerous epidemiological studies now reported.

Perhaps it is the media? Giving an unfair bias to the more interesting story, although I doubt this, as it was a Sunday times journalist that revealed the author of the paper to have certain misgivings... In any case information is so free and easy to obtain these days, it's easy to view multiple pieces of evidence on the Internet.. that's if you choose to of course. What I believe is more damaging and actually quite startling, is that many mothers are making decisions on their child's health care through hear say and whispers from other mothers. This cascading effect of 'someone said something 10yrs ago' has resulted in steady outbreaks not just in the UK but throughout the world in the past decade. Even more disturbing is the effect on children too young to receive the vaccination yet still vulnerable to the disease. This situation was reported in Brighton and Hove in which very young children have contracted the disease from older children who have not received the vaccination. One of the mothers of such a child said ' these mothers are playing Russian Roulette with their children's lives' but it seems not just their children, the whole community could be at risk.

I find myself thinking, do these people not understand how damaging these diseases are? Realising the cruel irony that in fact it is probably our amazing health care that has shielded them from the possible seriousness of these diseases. If we look at Africa the seriousness is clear to see, measles is one of the leading causes of child death, where for example Malawi's measles incidence rate per 100,000 total population is 490.8 compared to that of the UK 0.64 (WHO, 2010). I am reminded of a comment made by an Immunology lecture of mine, in which he described the reaction of one of his fellow Doctors born and working in Zimbabwe. He was shocked that parents in the UK were denying this potentially lifesaving vaccination to their children when it was so accessible. In Zimbabwe vaccination is rare and cases often prove fatal, the facts are plain to see with a 78% drop in measeals incidence 2000-2008 as a result of increased vaccinations worldwide.

I'm not sure how the situation can change in the UK, perhaps the exposure of parents to the consequences of no vaccination should be made more apparent in the media and by the NHS. Yet I fear these situations will only change once parents come face to face with the consequences of these diseases- pneumonia and encephalitis to name a few, but by then it is too late. When accurate information is so accessible, yet parents continue to make judgements that effect their children's health on hear say, I'm left thinking what an earth has happened to our sense of rationality? Will people really believe everything they hear?....

Can scientists turn bad? If so, can science save them?

I often get harassed by climate sceptics... It's not like I look for them, it's just they seem to be drawn to me like moths to a flame.... Not one who gains enjoyment from initiating an argument but also not one likely to let my opinions and views go left unsaid, I often unwillingly enter a debate. Agreed, much of the time I'm left relaying evidence and scientific theory that suggests climate change is occurring and yes we cause it, met with unaccepting ignorance. But sometimes a different argument is thrown in, one such argument that got me thinking was 'those scientists will say anything for money'. I know, the statement is rash and unthoughtful, and of course I argued about the stringent control and criticism in science and the openness that allows such peer review and questioning. But I was left thinking.... we are just human.

What drives science? Thought? Observation? or money? All three I would guess, it is however true that lack of funding means lack of research. You could write the most beautiful, succinct grant proposal ever seen yet if there is no future or at least way to gain merit in the future it won't succeed in receiving funding from one of the various bodies. So, with this in mind, is it possible that scientists would be fraudulent with data to secure future funding?


The above statement that originally accosted my thoughts was in relation to the University of East Anglia's 'Climategate'. A perfect example of how a slight turn of phrase can cascade through ignorance into a rolling ball of climate denier shit, showering the general public with fallacies and just plain untruths. In case a sceptic reads this I must confirm that following investigations into this incident 'The rigor and honesty of the scientists was found not to be in doubt' and it was also found that there was 'no evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments that human activities are causing global warming.' An interesting time for science and also a illustration of just how far we have to go to bridge the gap between publishing of science and research to the interpretation of it by the general public. Climate change is undoubtedly a big player in scientific research at the moment and with that, often the receiver of substantial funding, but could this really be a motive for fraudulence in science?


I recently read an interesting article on fraud in science by Dr J Crocker, using Diederik Staple a social psychologist who recently admitted fabricating much of his data. Social psychology is not a subject I know much about but the reputable American psychological Association having published much of his work has now been slowly withdrawing many of his papers, with early signs suggesting the scale of his fraud as vast. A fascinating point she brought up was likely ramifications of committing such a crime. Damaging the careers of students and colleagues, damaging the reputation of the research body or University as well as doubts to co-author papers... would you still be left believing it was worth it? I don't think I would. Apparently according to Dr Crocker, it only takes a few steps to become comfortable with you actions before they escalate "dropping a inconvenient data point- and avoiding discomfort by justifying or rationalising their way out'. It is however, how the truth outted that I feel is of greatest importance, the colleagues and researchers that took steps to stop such misconduct at the risk to their own careers.


I hate to say it.. but these people acted for 'the greater good'. It may be about morality, or logic or just plain rationality, but something tells me it is unacceptable. Scientific theory is empirical and always open to falsification, and although fraud in science has been shown to occur, the openness of science should combat falsification of results. One of the biggest threats that such misconduct could have is to the publics mistrust of science and scientists. One could argue that 'climategate' illustrated the lack of trust already distilled in the general public, which could only be made worse with such revelations. Communication and understanding of the scientific medium is our greatest challenge, but with it comes responsibility for upholding the definition of science 'organising knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe' even if the outcomes are not quite what we expected. Science is fluid and changeable, its nature is what makes it so facinating. We are constantly moving forward with new thoughts and theories, so in this respect there are no right answers... just interesting ones.