Fragile Science: The reality behind the headlines by Robin Baker,
Macmillan, 拢15.99, ISBN 0333901029
WE face the 21st century with a 19th-century model of science:
particularly the idea that it can somehow be perfected. Books like Fragile
Science, fascinating though they are, are one of the symptoms.
Robin Baker was a reader in biology at Manchester University before turning
to full-time writing and broadcasting. He remains a product of science鈥檚
ideology of perfectibility. Thus he cannot escape from the idea that the
problems in the tales he tells lie with embarrassing 鈥渇laws鈥� and
鈥渕istakes鈥濃�攕ome precipitated by greed, some by the media and some by
ill-judged demands from the public.
Advertisement
Baker takes a series of widely accepted ideas, uncovers the fragility of the
evidence that supports them, and reveals that different interpretations are
possible. He argues that sunblock creams might be the cause of skin cancer
rather than a cure; that cholesterol in the blood might be the body鈥檚 attempt to
alleviate heart attacks rather than their cause; and that we know next to
nothing about clinical depression in spite of Prozac.
In the end, rather than drawing the rather obvious conclusion that what we
need is a different model of science, Baker tells us: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 best hypothesis
once properly tested may well be tomorrow鈥檚 joke. . . But eventually, the
correct hypothesis will come along and stand the test of time, another robust
pillar amidst the scientific colonnade of glass.鈥� Whew! That鈥檚 alright then!
Most of the discussion of the science in the stories is interesting and
informative. Consider sunblock creams for a flavour of Baker鈥檚 arguments. We
know that exposure to the sun causes skin cancer. It seems to follow that a
cream which blocks ultra-violet rays from penetrating the skin must be a good
thing. Furthermore, there is a fortune to be made out of sunblock creams, so鈥�
But the incidence of skin cancer continues to increase. Could it be that the
damage to our skins is caused by our new habit of smearing chemicals onto our
skin and exposing the mix to heat and ultra-violet?
The statistical evidence, Baker points out, is at best ambivalent. Increased
use of sunblock also correlates with a massive increase in holidays in hot
countries. We no longer slowly develop sun-proof complexions in the fields.
Correlations are not causes.
So far, so informative. But suppose I went to, say, a marriage guidance
counsellor for advice, and suppose my marriage still failed. Would I feel the
need to say that the marriage guidance counsellor had made 鈥渕istakes鈥�? Would I
feel the need to say that in the fullness of time correct marriage guidance
hypotheses would come along?
Marriage guidance counselling is, I suggest, the model we need for this
complex science. Among the things we need to reconcile are the unfolding of
events on a worldwide scale rather than in a lab, and patterns of human
behaviour that interact with scientific claims.
What we need to know is what to do next. In the 21st century we we鈥檒l have to
learn how to use science in the manner of advice, rather than received truth. We
need to replace a discourse of culpable flaws and mistakes with one of
scientific expertise, judgement and experience鈥攁ll innately fallible. In
this interesting book, Baker tells us that the science is not working but
misdirects us as to how we should think about it.