28th February 2006

Does Science have all the answers?

Report on meeting from Chris Brain:

On Friday evening (24th Feb) over 50 people joined the Green party sponsored Cafe Discussion (i) at Star Anise Café to discuss the question ‘Does Science Have All The Answers?’

Chris Brain opened the discussion with a short introduction to the Sociology of Science and put forward the view that an understanding of how science works is essential to an understanding of today’s society (ii) (A longer report prepared by him is available under 'Reports' at this website while some notes from this evening are enclosed below). Peter Adams then focused the topic on how science is operating in health and medicine (iii). Peter’s argument is that contemporary scientific treatments are out of step with the most advanced theories in other branches of science. Some ‘alternative’ treatments (such as homeopathy) seem to fit better into new scientific theories, such as systems theory.

After these introductory talks questions were put to the speakers. Some questions were quite specific, on the nature of homeopathy, the placebo effect etc. Others were broader in their scope on the funding of research, on the difference between a reductionist approach and an approach that looks at the whole system.

After this short question and answer session, the chair, Martin Whiteside, asked each table to consider one element of the topic in table discussion for about 20 minutes.

The topics were:

What do we all need to understand? How should ‘Science’ be taught?
What should the role of ‘alternative’ and complementary’ therapies be, in our free NHS?
Is scientific research safe in big business’s hands? What should Governments fund?
Does Science help or hinder our relationship with the nature/environment/Gaia?
How do different belief systems or religions effect how we perceive science? How does science effect our beliefs or faith?

After table discussion each table reported back their thoughts on the different elements of the topic. There then followed a large group discussion on the whole topic. Many different views and ideas were expressed; in general there was a positive view that open-minded meetings between scientists (doctors) and practitioners from different backgrounds could lead to better general healthcare by utilising the best of both worlds. There was a generally expressed concern about the nature of funding for scientific research. Particularly that, under the present system there does not seem to be any way to fund research that would allieviate poverty, as there can be no payback for the cost of research.

The next coffee house event asks the question ‘Should there be any limits to freedom of speech?’

Friday March 24th 7.30-9.30pm
Star Anise Arts Café
(Behind the Old Painswick Inn, Gloucester St, Stroud)

Notes:
(i) The Coffee House Discussion evenings are events open to everyone. Our ideal aim would be to attract a group of people that included all political and philosophical viewpoints. All opinions and ideas are treated with respect and heard by open minds.  The idea is that everyone gets the chance to express their views and hear other peoples. The aim is for everyone to go away with a much broader understanding of the subject (from other people’s views) than they came with, even those who may have been studying the subject for many years.
(ii) Chris Brain, is organiser of the Cafe Discussions and used his degree dissertation to explore the role of science. Some brief notes of his are enclosed below.
(iii) Peter Adams is the owner of Stroud Natural Health Clinic and has been practising homeopathy since 1984. He is the author of two books on health and is working on a third about Intelligent Medicine which presents aspects of new science which provide an explanation of how natural health treatments work. He sees science as a journey of discovery which will never reach its destination, and believes that modern science sometimes forgets this and that this can be dangerous.


Any enquiries please contact:
Chris Brain - 01453 758800 - shikasta69@hotmail.com

Notes from Chris Brain's talk:

 
GM Crops MMR Vaccine Nuclear Power Climate Change End of Oil Alternative Therapies Nanotechnology Forensic Evidence TB in Cattle Evolution vs. Intelligent Design DNA Test Avian Flu Smoking Ban Identity Cards Herceptin MRSA Animal Testing HIV Aids Malaria Biodiversity Tsunami Clean Water Sustainability

Just a few of the issues that science plays a leading part in. To a greater or lesser extent an understanding of science is either necessary or useful in taking part in these debates. Not an understanding of the science (no-one can be an expert in all of these topics) but an understanding of how science works.

An understanding is needed because in many of these debates science is often used as an unquestionable authority. ‘The Science’ is used in the same way as ‘Gods Word’ or ‘The Party Line’ is used in other exchanges as a full stop to the debate. ‘You may say what you like but the science tells us I am right and you are wrong’. In so many debates you hear the phrase ‘There would be no problem if only people understood the science’. The idea being put forward here is that those who understand the science are seeing the issues of the debate in a clear-cut, rational way. The evidence is before them, all factors are contained, and the scientific process leads in one clear direction. Those who do not understand the science are lost in confusion, superstition and fear of the unknown. If only they could be drawn in to the great clarity of scientific rationalism all would be well.

This is, of course, all nonsense but not only in the most obvious way. Clearly those who are opposing a particular scientific stance are rarely ignorant barbarians and are often arguing from the same rational, analytical perspective as those quoting the science. The worst part of the above scenario is that it completely misrepresents the true nature of science and the people who work in it. So what is an understanding of the ‘true nature’ of science? There are three broad views of the understanding of science.

- Understanding as knowing a lot of science. People should know the third law of thermodynamics, the mechanics of evolution etc. etc.

- Understanding as knowing how science works. Science as an objective, rational and logical pursuit of demonstrateable truths through observation of the natural world. The scientific method and the Mertonian ideals. Science produces clear and certain knowledge.

- Understanding as knowing how science really works. Sociologists of science reveal a human pursuit that is influenced by ambition, subjectivity and selectiveness. A fallible, untidy pursuit that has little to do with logic or rationality. Uncertainty, opposing views and conflict are strong characteristics.

These three perceptions of science lead to a number of questions about the nature of science and its place in our society.

How much science should the average person know? Is it important to understand how an aeroplane stays in the air? Or just to feel relatively confident that it will. Does an understanding of the mechanism that genetically modifies wheat really inform a decision on whether it should be grown?

Should the wider public be more involved in funding and development decisions in science? How much understanding of the science do we need in order to take part in that process?

Are the ideals of science (objectivity, detachment, scientific method) good qualities that should be aspired to, or are they too far away from the reality of human nature (and perhaps the nature of reality) to be of any use?

Is science that admits uncertainty and fallibility still of use in making decisions?

Can systems based on science (conventional medicine) and systems based on other foundations (some alternative treatments) really work together?

How independent is scientific knowledge? Is government-funded science more or less independent than science funded by industry or NGO’s?

Is science a belief system? What is it that is different about science?

What does all this mean when applied to making decisions on the subjects at the top of the page? Particularly,

Acceptance or rejection of GM technology
Incorporation of alternative and complimentary therapies into the NHS
Responses to climate change
Use of scientific evidence in court cases
Use of animals in medical research