Why Understanding Science is Vital

Several times in the past, I've emphasized the importance of understanding science.  I wrote about science education and in 2013 even titled a piece “Sleeping Through ScienceClass.”  Past essays showed how a lack of understanding and Internet hype, leads to misinterpretation of research studies that are constantly in the news, which in turn leads to wasting money buying worthless pills and other health aids and following the latest food fads.

As a quick example, National Health Service (NHS) in England will stop paying for what they consider to be "low value" treatments.  The list includes: homeopathy and herbal medicines along with Omega-3 fatty acid compounds (fish oil), lidocaine plasters, glucosamine and chondroitin combination products, lutein and antioxidant combination products, oxycodone and naloxone combination products.  All of these are classified by the NHS as “products of low clinical effectiveness, where there is a lack of robust evidence of clinical effectiveness or there are significant safety concerns.” [Emphasis added]  How many of these do Americans see advertised and spend hard-earned money on hoping for health miracles?

But in the not too distant future, we will be called upon to make choices where the importance of understanding science goes far beyond protecting people’s wallets from their own foolishness.  Decisions will be about the ethics and morality of medical procedures.

Already researchers are testing an experimental drug injected into spinal fluid to lower levels of toxic proteins in the brains of patients with Huntington’s Disease, a neurodegenerative condition.  “Some patients described the condition as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and motor neurone disease rolled into one.”  In an interaction called “gene-silencing,” the drug acts to block a genetic error carried by the DNA to inhibit the formation of those bad proteins in the brain.

Beyond the idea of silencing genes to block errors is the use of gene spicing to combat other diseases.  Advances in this type of gene editing are moving quickly to develop a variety of  desired characteristics in animals.  In Turkey a few years ago two bunnies were born glowing green when the scientists altered their DNA with jellyfish genes.  But this was not a frivolous endeavor by some mad scientists.  They hoped to use what they learned about manipulating genes to produce new medicine in milk, among other applications.

According to the recent book, A Crack in Creation, this process of gene splicing could soon be used to combat human diseases.  Additionally, germ-line editing of human embryos could be used to eliminate birth defects or (and this is a bigger issue) to alter the characteristics of a baby in development which, in some cases, could allow improved characteristics to be passed on future generations.  Scientists and doctors developing better humans in the lab could upend the idea of evolution taking place over millions of years.

Imagine the ethical questions that will arise from such tinkering!  If people today are frightened by GMO wheat, think of their reaction to GMO humans, even if the DNA modifications are made only for lifesaving reasons.  Next question: should DNA modification be used to prevent cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases?  Finally, how do we regulate the use of such power to permit only wise and beneficial outcomes?  Do the rich get to buy super-babies while the rest are left even further behind in the evolutionary struggle?  Just as nuclear power can be used both to generate electricity without emissions and to blow up entire cities, so such advanced biological science may be used for good or destructive purposes.

In a democracy, the people should be making these kinds of decisions rather than scientists, government or the courts acting independently.  How will Americans decide complex medical questions appropriately when many are unable, for example, to distinguish homeopathy from real medicine?

Some decisions are already being driven by public opinion.  As one American scientist pointed out in the green-rabbit story, much of the research takes place outside the US because:  “Animals [in this country] have so many rights now that it is insane. So the cost to do it in the US is extremely prohibitive. They want to stop you. That’s why we’re going abroad where regulations are a lot more sensible.”  Does America abdicate the lead in this field, leaving the rest of the world to find and market cures and set regulations or do we use our influence to try to assure wise and fair outcomes?

As long as public opinion is so easily swayed by junk science claims and political scare tactics, the future of medicine is in question.