In the article below Lord Dick Taverne brands those who, on the one hand, refuse to swallow intensive farming, GM crops and conventional medicine wholesale and, on the other, refuse to reject the alternatives unequivocally, as dogmatists, ideologues and new religionists whose faddy faith makes them anti-science and anti-modern technology.

But when Taverne talks about "facts not fads" he leaves out of account that facts come theory-laden, that science has its own fashions, that scientists are often at the mercy of institutional pressures, and that young researchers are forced to follow fashionable, and these days often commercially viable, lines of work if they want to remain within the bounds of academic respectability. He also, as others have pointed out, conflates science and technology. A respect for biology does not mean one has to favour every bio-technology any more than a respect for physics requires an endorsement of nuclear weapons.

Note also how Taverne ridicules the popularity of alternative medicine, even among conventional doctors, but plays the numbers game himself when it comes to GM crops. Contrast "Some 40% of GPs now offer complementary therapies" with "the huge international success of GM cotton cultivated by 6 million small farmers". And Taverne tells us nothing about the scientific basis for the claimed "success" or even why we should accept his "6 million" statistic. In fact, this statistic comes from the biotech industry backed lobby group ISAAA and depends largely on assumptions about what is happening in China - asumptions which are extremely hard to verify.

The frame of mind most necessary to pursue scientific enquiry is an open-minded sceptical one, not Taverne's extreme posturing and strenuous appeals to the external authority of Science. It is Taverne and his pals at Sense About Science who are the dogmatists, ideologues and ol' time techno-religionists.
------

Believe in facts not fads
If we don't trust science, we risk putting our faith in something far more dangerous, argues Dick Taverne
Thursday March 17, 2005
The Guardian
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1439046,00.html

A Mori poll this week shows that eight out of 10 Britons think science makes a good contribution to society. Yet paradoxically, only four out of 10 think themselves very or fairly well informed about science. Is this why people ignore scientific evidence in much of their daily lives?

Consider the popularity of alternative medicine. Some 40% of GPs now offer complementary therapies as part of their services and many are qualified homeopaths. In fact homeopathy is nonsense on stilts. It was founded on the proposition that "like cures like", for which there is no evidence, and since this involves treating patients with toxic substances that can poison them, a second law was invented, the law of infinitesimals. This states that the more a substance is diluted, the greater the benefit. A dilution to the power of 30 is standard, that is, one part to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. None of the original substance remains and any success is achieved through the placebo effect.

Organic food is another case in point. It is promoted by intensive propaganda from the Soil Association, assisted by supermarkets that benefit from its premium prices, and its virtues are accepted by restaurateurs and lifestyle magazines. Yet claims made for it have been consistently rejected by the Food Standards Agency and Advertising Standards Authority for lack of scientific evidence. However, the Soil Association clearly does not need the support of science. Its head told a House of Lords select committee that "the current tools of understanding that are available to the scientific community are not sufficiently well developed" to measure the merits of organic farming.

Many buy organic food because they wish to avoid pesticides. They believe there is an increased incidence of cancer caused by chemicals in the environment and residues in food. In fact our food is safer than before. Permitted levels for pesticide residues are rarely exceeded and are set far below safety levels. As the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, Sir John Krebs, observed "a cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic residues in the diet".

The campaign against transgenic crops is not based on scientific evidence. Although genetically modified crops are now cultivated on over 70m hectares in 18 countries, there has been no evidence of harm to human health or to the environment. GM food is subjected to far more rigorous safety tests than many traditional ingredients of our diet.

Why have popular belief and scientific fact diverged, and why are people so reluctant to apply scientific knowledge to their own behaviour?

First, trust in experts has declined. Tragedies associated with thalidomide and BSE inspired widespread mistrust, especially in government experts, and a suspicion that they often cover up uncomfortable facts. Hence the reaction by parents against the MMR vaccine, greatly stimulated by the media.

Second, the success of science has itself led to increased anxiety. Since vaccination and antibiotics have stopped us dying from so many diseases, people have no experience of smallpox, whooping cough or measles and can afford to believe vaccination is a dangerous interference.

A more serious explanation of the current malaise lies in the rise of the environmental movement and the pervasive influence within it of a dogmatism based on the belief that modern technology adversely affects our relationship with nature.

During the 1970s, pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth played an important role in rousing public opinion from complacency about environmental degradation. But as the environmental movement has grown in influence, it has become more fundamentalist. The trashing of GM crops during field trials showed that the campaign against them had become a crusade and that Greenpeace has become impervious to evidence. When the huge international success of GM cotton cultivated by 6 million small farmers is denied and the potential benefits of crops like golden rice are ridiculed , it is clear that dogma prevails over reason.

Because its cause, saving the planet, is noble, the new faith has much popular appeal and support among the media, skilfully exploited by the NGOs. If the new religion spreads, much of the progress that science brings could be jeopardised.

Dick Taverne is the founder and chair of Sense About Science. He is the author of The March of Unreason, published this week by OUP at GBP18.99. To order a copy for GBP18.04 with free UK p&p, call the Guardian book service on 0870 836 0875 or go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/bookshop