Big Science

I like to think that science has a role similar to that of an older sibling. Science has of course been around longer than any of us and is quite useful in catching us up to speed on the world. I still remember when my older brother first told me that atoms have three parts: electrons, neutrons, and protons. I was floored. Three different parts! All ending in “ons!” The recent Harpers’ Findings testifies to the knowledge that science can still provide: natural disasters have quadrupled in the past two decades, thousands of Australian crocodiles suffer from Chlamydia, obesity increases the risk of gingivitis, and sex makes people happier than money.

If science simply continued to inform us on random trivia facts, all would be well; however, science, not quite content with its role as an older sibling, has decided to become a parent and start bossing us around.

Frank Furedi in his online column Really Bad Ideas, recently commented on the emergence of a new term: science combined with a definite article—the Science. Science and the Science have quite distinct meanings. Science is a tool that investigates the natural world. The Science is a moral, political, and dogmatic force. For example, science tells us the weight of calcium and voltage of lightning; the Science tells us not to eat trans-fats, how often to get colonoscopies, and how many cups of coffee are safe for daily consumption. While science is like a cool older brother, the Science is like a nagging mother: “How much have you been drinking?” “Are you getting enough sleep?” “Have you been wearing your seatbelt?” “What about condoms?” “Why don’t you let me research more aspects of your personal life?”

The nagging perhaps could be ignored if larger problems did not go hand-in-hand with the Science. By telling people what they should do, the science leaves the realm of impartial epistemological observation and enters the tumultuous space of morals and values. In this arena, science can be twisted to meet political ends and becomes embroiled in a cultural fight. The intelligent design movement uses the guise of science to promote a religious end. Both the Bush White House and Al Gore abuse science to promote environmental and economic policies. Facts become distorted; contradicting data is conveniently unmentioned; and people’s faith in scientific studies begins to wane.

Although science is often seen as a victim who has been ganged up on by religious and political elements, the reality is that science helped pick this fight in two major ways.

The first is the movement towards considering everything in scientific terms. For example, incest is viewed as “bad” not because of a moral reason but because of the biological disadvantages caused by inbreeding. Old arguments based on values have been replaced by arguments over data. Groups ranging from the environmentalist movement to the pro-life movement use scientific research to justify their worldviews. In today’s world, it isn’t enough to simply logically disagree, but rather one must negate or at least undermine the opposition science’s authority.

The second area in which science has run into problems is with the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is the simple step of expanding “is” into “ought.” “Is” is a positive statement of fact. “Ought” is a normative statement and carries much more baggage with it. For example, when considering human evolution, chimpanzees are the closest common ancestor to humans. Male chimps when trying to mate often turn violent. Field studies have observed male chimps forcing copulation with female chimps, coercing them with threats of violence, and in extreme cases killing infants to gain access to females. This is natural in chimps, and arguably aspects of this behavior are natural in human males. Natural in that in the behavior does exist, not that it ought to exist. The naturalistic fallacy has led to eugenics, sexism, and the birth of the Science.

Science historically developed as a response to religious belief. However, the modern synthesis of the Science—incarnated with its high priests touting new social laws based on new research—comes dangerously close to the dogmatic and inflexible systems of belief that it originally replaced. Science needs to abandon its practice of prescribing advice for society and return to its root mission of exploring the mysteries of the universe. After all, the best human life cannot be discovered through peer-reviewed controlled tests; it can only be attempted through zeal, a bit of good luck, and an earnest desire to make the most of existence.

Steven T. Cupps ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is a biological anthropology and economics concentrator in Lowell House.