Peter Doherty - The Knowledge Wars

Peter Doherty shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering the nature of cellular immune defence and continues to be involved in research directed at understanding and preventing the severe consequences of influenza virus infection. He is a huge advocate for evidence-based reality in areas as diverse as childhood vaccination, global hunger and anthropogenic climate change. In an effort to communicate more broadly, he has published four books for general readers. The Knowledge Wars is the latest.

PETER DOHERTY

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS

An imprint of Melbourne University Publishing Limited

1115 Argyle Place South, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

www.mup.com.au

First published 2015

Text Peter Doherty, 2015

Design and typography Melbourne University Publishing Limited, 2015

This book is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or process whatsever without the prior written permission of the publishers.

Every attempt has been made to locate the copyright holders for material quoted in this book. Any person or organisation that may have been overlooked or misattributed may contact the publisher.

Cover design by Design by Committee

Typeset by Typeskill

Printed in Australia by McPhersons Printing Group

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Doherty, PC (Peter C) author.
The knowledge wars/Peter Doherty.

9780522862850 (paperback)
9780522862867 (ebook)

Science and civilization.
Science and state.
ScienceSocial aspects.
Climate and civilization.

303.483

HOW DO WE KNOW anything? With a constant barrage of social media, TV, radio, internet, print newspapers and magazines we have never, in the 120,000 plus-year history of our species, been so deluged with information, much of which can be highly contradictory. How do we make sense of it? We are all familiar with the (often) emotionally charged public debates on issues like vaccination, whether or not everyone should be taking statins, anthropogenic climate change and the supposed dangers of genetically modified foods, wind farms and high-tension power lines. How do we sort the life-sustaining wheat from the chaff thats just blowing in the wind? Overloaded and busy as we are, we may just take the path of least resistance, tune out much of this noise and simply identify with a particular interpretation that fits our overall political and social views.

Part of the challenge for us is to distinguish genuine disagreements based in sound, but perhaps conflicting, information from propaganda intended to support the bottom line of powerful businesses and established economic models. There is no more stark or alarming example of this than the denial of the scientific proof of human-caused climate change. And the power of money isnt the only influence on our perceptions. Embracing a shared vision that natural is better than man-made, or that (even if other kids are put at risk) parents are empowered to say whether or not their children should be vaccinated, can immediately distance us from any desire to understand where the risks really lie. All these reactions are very human.

The problem is, though, that real advances in human wellbeing are based in discovery and innovation, not in the dogmatic pronouncements of dubious leaders or in widely shared but uninformed views. If you want to engage with a world where authority, belief, fear, prejudice and natural remedies ruled, take a look at life as it was in the thirteenth century! Then think again how the culture of reason, rigorous enquiry and innovation that defines western values since the time of the Enlightenment has so transformed human existence. Ultimately, the abandonment of reason and intellectual integrity is not in the best interests of any of us.

That we can find a quick answer to many simple questions via our smart phone, or search the internet and access a variety of information and opinion, does not necessarily provide definitive knowledge. I suspect it may even add to the confusion. And, though we may recognise the power of the internet, the experience of boarding an A380 Airbus and being on the other side of the planet in less than twenty-four hours, and the dramatic increase in average human lifespans due to better medical understanding and treatment, have we really engaged intellectually with why that is so? Clearly, if we read the great religious textsor the writings of the Ancient Greekswe realise that what we value emotionally and how we interact with each other has not varied all that much over the past millennia. But what has changed is that the practice of disciplined, rigorous enquiry and the intelligent application of the findings from such questioning and analysis have given us immense power over the natural world. Who can doubt that the differences we enjoy today are due to our access to the power of science and technology?

Knowledge is power, and science is a particular type of knowledge. This book is about science and how it works to illuminate both the physical world and our place in it. It is also about understanding this great investigative culture, where the strengths and flaws lie and how to interrogate the scientists. If, as intelligent beings, we really want to engage with controversial topics like the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, or the evidence that wind farms are damaging our health, it helps if we know where to go for good information and how to make sense of what we read. This is what The Knowledge Wars will hopefully show you.

Though the details may at times be complicated and obscure to all but dedicated professionals, the practice of science is fundamentally a straightforward process based in probing ideas, designing experiments, pursuing observational strategies, making measurements and then drawing valid conclusions from reproducible data sets. The pace of change in science over the past few decades has been incredible, with constant technological advances and revolutions in understanding. Modern science can move very fast indeed when it comes to areas of major social and scientific interest.

Thats why, in attempting to grapple intellectually with questions based in science, the primary need is to hear the views of people who are currently active in the field or from science communicators who are engaging with such individuals and presenting generally agreed conclusions. Were discussing two categories of people here: the authoritative (yet often narrow) voice of the dedicated research scientist who speaks from intimate, first-hand knowledge, versus the explanatory synthesis of the commentator who tries to convey that understanding more broadly. In the public space, you are more likely to hear a coherent narrative from a good science journalist or generalist author. The active researchers themselves just want to get on with the job of exploring, though this unwillingness to engage can leave them very vulnerable to misrepresentation.

Real scientists never claim to speak with absolute authority. Theres no such thing as infallibility in science, and both the specialists and the communicators can be wrong (or more often half right) at times. Thats why scientific conclusions are constantly being refined, and why scepticism is an essential component of the research enterprise. This is reflected in the ways that the conclusions of the quinquennial Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are modified as more is learned from long-term studies, and thinking is refined by the acquisition of new data from improved instrumentation and enhanced satellite surveillance. And neither the scientists nor the people who write about science are saints. Driven by excessive ambition, a need for ego gratification, intellectual rigidity or financial self-interest, individuals can and do occasionally go to the dark side and fall into dogmatic denial, fraud and even criminality.