Fear of Science and Technology

Last week I attended a presentation on GMOs by a Purdue University professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. He was very knowledgeable with impressive credentials, but he said things some people didn’t want to hear. 

The primary point of contention was that a vast majority (near 90%) of scientists agree that genetically modified plants are safe to eat, but only 37% of the general public agree. Somehow when a majority of scientists are cited as agreeing with man-made global warming, everyone is so convinced that they will try to cut off any further discussion; they shudder to think of the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement; but when a majority of scientists say that GMOs are safe to eat, they must all be working for Monsanto. 

The difference is that climate change is not as scary as eating something potentially harmful. The resistance arises from a fear of something that sounds very unnatural.

However, the speaker pointed out that farms, and agriculture in general, is not natural. Even in backyard gardens, people remove the weeds that naturally grow to plant seeds that have been developed through thousands of years of selection. As nature caused genetic modifications in plants, people preserved those with the best characteristics: size, juiciness, drought-resistance. Humans have been eating and enjoying unnatural foods for millennia (fresh from the garden).

Furthermore, the introduction of plant science has enabled great leaps forward in agriculture, allowing farmers around the world to feed the growing population, now 7.6 billion. For example, the average yield of corn per acre in the US in 1900 was 25.9 bushels per acre. That increased to 77.4 by 1965 and to 137.0 by 2000. The yield in 2017 was 176.6 bushels per acre. The application of science increased the amount of corn by almost 7 times when it would have been impossible to increase the acreage.

But the myth exists that natural automatically equates to good and healthy, and promoters of food and supplements use that to our overall disadvantage.  Another glaring example of this came across the Internet a few weeks back.

A product called kraton is being aggressively promoted as a possible solution to the opioid epidemic. They say it is harmless and no more addictive than coffee. But there is “no reliable evidence that kratom can help addicts safely wean themselves off of heroin or prescription opioids, or that it offers any other therapeutic benefit, according to the FDA, which has issued a public health warning about its potential for addiction."

Various scientific studies show that it causes withdrawal symptoms similar to those of opioids, and it has been linked to episodes of psychosis, seizures, and to deaths, along with mild, moderate, and life-threatening medical outcomes reported in 660 phone calls to U.S. poison control centers from 2010 through 2015.“The CDC has issued four reports of Salmonella infection outbreaks linked to contaminated products.”

But here is how it’s promoted. It is marketed as a dietary supplement that grows naturally in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea with friendly sounding brand names like Botany Bay, Enhance Your Life and Divinity. They claim it helps overcome opioid addiction and withdrawal, lowers pain and blood pressure, prevents cancer and reduces nerve damage caused by strokes. (There is no evidence for any of these claims.)

Meanwhile Americans continue to buy it as the industry association fights government attempts to take it off the market. Again it’s a matter of valid science vs. perceptions, of critical thinking vs. feelings. It all comes down to that persistent misconception that natural stands for guaranteed goodness. (The Salmonella that contaminated some samples was also natural!)

A More Complex World Requires A Wiser Approach

A couple of years ago, CNN began an investigation based on a government mail fraud case against a Canadian company accused of processing payments for many rip-off artists from around the world with millions of victims in the US. “Many of the schemes are remarkably similar. They prey on the desperate, sick and elderly -- sending out letters that trick people into thinking they've won the lottery or found a psychic adviser who will turn their lives around.” Every year the scammers stole millions and laundered it through that company.

As follow up and as research for a book on the subject, they wanted to meet and interview a famous French psychic whose name is at the bottom of letters that appeared to be handwritten and personally signed. Addressed to the elderly, sick and lonely, "the letters promised that Maria Duval would use her powers as a world-renowned psychic to help solve their problems. They could recover from ailments, avoid terrible misfortune, win the lottery.” They only needed to send her money first. “At least 1.4 million Americans fell for the scam.”

To be convincing, the “letters contained personal details, like a recipient’s name, age or hometown” but this information is easily obtained on line. They bought mailing lists of people who would likely fall for such a scam. These people would then send in about $40 for each letter giving them guidance from the psychic along with lucky numbers and magic charms. The total collected in this one operation is estimated at over $200 million.

This continued for more than 20 years, but was only the tip of the iceberg. When they got an interview with the psychic, they found that she sold the rights to her name for a fraction of the proceeds. The psychic letter ploy along with other similar scams had become big business with professional copywriters and marketers scattered around the world and linked together by the Canadian payment processors.

It’s true that not enough Americans understand that psychic powers don’t exist. Those that can’t distinguish coincidence from the universe sending messages (or some such nonsense) are easily taken in. It’s true that some Americans don’t understand that you can never win a lottery that you haven’t bought a ticket for. But that’s not the main point.

There is a broader issue here. More sophisticated Americans, who scoff at the victims of these scams, follow fads and trends, are taken in by advertising for products of dubious value and respond with fear to manufactured crises. 

Their lack of critical thinking is evident and somewhat frightening. On one hand, they argue that climate change is real, based on the testimony of so many scientists. On the other, they will reject scientific consensus on many other subjects like the safety of genetic engineering, glyphosate (brand name Roundup) and irradiation of food. They will buy into the concept that locally grown and organic produce is always superior. They put their families on a gluten-free diet when there is no medical reason to do so. They believe there is something magical about sea salt. They put their faith in all sorts of untested dietary supplements. Experts warning against these actions are considered corporate shills or just mistaken. They buy products based on nothing more than endorsements from friends, strangers or celebrity spokespersons. They flock to purveyors of “secrets” that drug companies, doctors, credit card companies, Wall Street and the government “don’t want you to know.”

All this goes on as the world gets more complex every day. Incredibly fast communications bring real and false offers and threats. Advanced robots, AI and autonomous vehicles lurk in the near future, while hackers try to steal our identities and influence votes. Are Americans ready for the future? Behavior shows that today far too many are struggling, victims of scams and their own poor decisions.

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.

More Food for Thought

When they launch a rocket, to resupply the space station for example, the fuel is liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.  When they combine, it causes a big explosion, which provides the thrust for the rocket.  The residue of this explosion is water vapor, H₂O.  When the vapor cools and condenses into drops and falls to the earth as rain, does anyone suspect that this rain is not the same as the other water falling from the sky?  Is it considered dangerous or looked on with suspicion because it is synthetic or man-made as opposed to being natural?  Do parents worry more about their children being caught in the rain near Cape Canaveral because of this possibility?   It wouldn't come as a surprise since we seem to decide what to be scared of without regard to science.

According to a Yale/Gallup poll from last month, 71 percent of Americans are personally convinced that global warming is happening.  At the same time about 40 percent “believed there is a lot of disagreement among scientists.”  They conclude, “many Americans appeared to have already made up their minds, without waiting for a perceived scientific consensus.”  Well, science is about evidence and not consensus anyway, but compare this with the GMO scare.

About 90 percent of Americans are concerned enough about GMOs to favor a requirement that they be labeled as such, despite the fact that a consensus of scientists agree that they are safe and a “large scientific study from 2013 found no significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops."  In this case, a recent Pew Research Center survey finds that “two-thirds of the Americans they interviewed think scientists themselves don't fully understand all of the ways GMOs could affect health.”

What are the long term implications when so many Americans make up their minds about scientific issues on the basis of what they think should be the answer and justify it by declaring that the scientists don’t know for sure either?

In the end it’s all about marketing.  If you frown and say “chemical fertilizer,” you will hear a chorus of boos; but if you smile and say “plant food,” they haul out the Miracle-Gro sprayers.  People will trust and believe in anything they buy at a “health food” store, despite the fact that these packages are more likely to contain contaminants or be inaccurately labeled.  To solve the GMO fear, maybe they just have to call it something like crop enrichment instead.

See how we are controlled and manipulated by marketing and social media when we let our emotional responses override our critical thinking!

Calendar August 2014

Here is an e-mail I received from a friend recently.  It’s pretty typical of the kind of information (and misinformation) that circulates daily in e-mails, tweets, Facebook and other sources both on and off the Internet.

Well, Feng Shui or not, this is wrong.  August has 31 days and whenever it starts on a Friday, it will have 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays and 5 Sundays.  Doesn’t it make sense that August has just as much of a chance of starting on a Friday as on any other day of the week?  That would be about 1 in 7, not 1 in 823.  This is crazy!

By checking a perpetual calendar it’s easy to see that August has started on a Friday 16 times since 1900.  It will happen this year and again in 2025, which is easily within the lifetime of most people.  This is not rocket science; it just requires a few minutes of research.

This is a harmless example of misinformation, but think about the other serious misinformation supposedly rooted in ancient Chinese wisdom or some other new-age authority, not harmless at all, misinformation about immunization, dietary supplements, genetic engineering, fluoridation of drinking water, paranormal events, get-rich-quick schemes, or quack remedies, misinformation about subjects that affect our health, safety, and financial security.  This is clearly not an all-inclusive list. 

That is why critical thinking is so important.

Science Education

I see so many cases of scientific misinformation and errors on TV, in the press and in advertising that I think it would be a good idea for someone or some organization (perhaps a university or  Consumer Protection Agency) to provide high school science teachers with a set of weekly topics.  The thrust would be how to protect yourself against fraud and misinformation – how people will try to use your lack of understanding of science to mislead, trick and cheat you.  If you don't understand science, no one will help you.

Here is a shocking example from a newspaper report from earlier this year (May 7, 2013) showing how sloppy journalists can be about science.  Dateline Cape Canaveral, “Two robotic U.S. rovers are back in business on Mars after a month long solar blackout that blocked communications with engineers back on Earth [due to] a solar conjunction [when the] sun in early April moved into an orbit directly between Earth and Mars, interfering with communications between the planets."  [Emphasis added].  Really?  The sun moved into an orbit between the planets?  Didn’t the columnist or his editor know better?  This is scary - reporting based on 15th Century science.  With this in mind, how much other, more damaging, bad information is passed along through the sloppiness or ignorance of the press? 

Many subjects, some covered in these posts over the past two years, would be helpful to young adults to keep them from wasting their time and money or becoming unnecessarily panicked.  Suggested topics include:  the placebo effect, pros and cons of dietary supplements, what to look for in properly designed experiments or tests for effectiveness, genetic engineering of food, the pros and cons of organic farming, a brief history of diet scams, the truth about vaccines and autism, fluoride in drinking water, understanding irradiated food, and common scientific myths.  Without an understanding of these subjects along with training in critical thinking as part of a science education, future generations will be vulnerable to deceptive advertising and the pleas from advocates for every crackpot idea that comes along.

What will happen when they step into high school chemistry class and find out that everything in the universe is made of chemicals and that "chemical" is not a bad word, nor is it the opposite of natural or organic – ideas that seem contrary to what they've encountered from family and the media?  It has almost come to the point where science is being replaced by religion in the public mind, not a standard religion, but a new quasi-religion where the truth is based more on what you believe or believe in than what can be scientifically tested.  Unless this behavior changes Americans will continue to waste money and energy supporting products and services backed only by scientific-sounding arguments and celebrity endorsements.  Let's change it early, before another generation is taken in.