Skeptical movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement

The skeptical movement (British spelling: sceptical movement) is a modern social movement based on the idea of scientific skepticism (also called rational skepticism). Scientific skepticism involves the application of skeptical philosophy, critical-thinking skills, and knowledge of science and its methods to empirical claims, while remaining agnostic or neutral to non-empirical claims (except those that directly impact the practice of science). The movement has the goal of investigating claims made on fringe topics and determining whether they are supported by empirical research and are reproducible, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge". The process followed is sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry.

Roots of the movement date at least from the 19th century, when people started publicly raising questions regarding the unquestioned acceptance of claims about spiritism, of various widely-held superstitions, and of pseudoscience. Publications such as those of the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (1881) also targeted medical quackery.

Using as a template the Belgian organization founded in 1949, Comité Para, Americans Paul Kurtz and Marcello Truzzi founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), in Amherst, New York, in 1976. Now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), this organization has inspired others to form similar groups worldwide.

Scientific skepticism

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is an epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism, which questions humans' ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it, and the similar but distinct methodological skepticism, which is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one's beliefs.

The New Skepticism described by Paul Kurtz in 1992 is scientific skepticism. For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny (as described in Mertonian norms).

According to religious history professor Olav Hammer, "the intellectual forebears of the modern skeptical movement are rather to be found among the many writers throughout history who have argued against beliefs they did not share."

The following quotations relate to scientific skepticism:

I submit that whatever stereotypes other people may have about skeptics, they are wrong. And waaaay too narrow. You can't fit what we do into a neat box (or any box). We love science and discovery; we enjoy life, we have all sorts of outside interests. Most of us are good-natured. And we like to get at the truth, as best as possible. Science is by far the best tool for that. ... The only requirement is a commetment to science and reason, to evidence, and to the quest for truth.

— Kendrick Frazier in Skeptical Inquirer

Briefly stated, a skeptic is one who is willing to question any claim to truth, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence. The use of skepticism is thus an essential part of objective scientific inquiry and the search for reliable knowledge.

— Paul Kurtz in The New Skepticism, 1992, p. 9

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and, especially important, to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises or starting point and whether that premise is true.

— Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World, 1995, p. 197

Science is [...] a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.

— Carl Sagan

Scientific skepticism (is) the practice or project of studying paranormal and pseudoscientific claims through the lens of science and critical scholarship, and then sharing the results with the public.

— Daniel Loxton

A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

— Steven Novella

"Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position."

— The Skeptics Society

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

— Brian Dunning

With regard to the skeptical social movement, Loxton refers to other movements already promoting "humanism, atheism, rationalism, science education and even critical thinking" beforehand. He saw the demand for the new movement—a movement of people called "skeptics" — as based on a lack of interest by the scientific community to address paranormal and fringe-science claims. In line with Kendrick Frazier, he describes the movement as a surrogate in that area for institutional science. The movement set up a distinct field of study, and provided an organizational structure, while "the long-standing genre of individual skeptical writing" lacked such a community and background. Skeptical organizations typically tend to have science education and promotion among their goals.

Overview

Scientific skeptics maintain that empirical investigation of reality leads to the most reliable empirical knowledge, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose. Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds—rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity. From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, Morgan's Canon and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism in general may be deemed part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.

The skeptic spectrum has been characterized as divided into "wet" and "dry" sceptics, primarily based on the level of engagement with those promoting claims that appear to be pseudoscience; the dry skeptics preferring to debunk and ridicule, in order to avoid giving attention and thus credence to the promoters, and the "wet" skeptics, preferring slower and more considered engagement, in order to avoid appearing sloppy and ill-considered and thus similar to the groups all skeptics opposed.

Ron Lindsay has argued that while some of the claims appear to be harmless or "soft targets," it is important to continue to address them and the underlying habits of thought that lead to them so that we do not "have a lot more people believing that 9/11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, that our government is controlled by aliens, and so forth -- and those beliefs are far from harmless."

The movement has had issues with allegations of sexism. The disparity between women and men in the movement was raised in a 1985 skeptic newsletter by Mary Coulman. The skeptic movement has generally been made up of men; at a 1987 conference the members there discussed the fact that the attendees were predominantly older white men and a 1991 listing of 50 CSICOP fellows included four women. Following a 2011 conference, Rebecca Watson, a prominent skeptic, raised issues of the way female skeptics are targeted with online harassment including threats of sexual violence by opponents of the movement, and also raised issues of sexism within the movement itself. While she received some support in response to her discussion of sexism within the movement, she later became a target of virulent online harassment, even from fellow skeptics, after posting an online video that discussed her discomfort with being propositioned in a confined space. This became known as "Elevatorgate", based on Watson's discussion about being propositioned in a hotel elevator in the early morning after a skeptic event.

Debunking and rational inquiry

The term "debunk" is used to describe efforts by skeptics to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated, or pretentious. It is closely associated with skeptical investigation or rational inquiry of controversial topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.

Further topics that scientifically skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and alternative medicines; the plausibility and existence of supernatural abilities (e.g. tarot reading) or entities (e.g. poltergeists, angels, gods—including Zeus); the monsters of cryptozoology (e.g. the Loch Ness monster); as well as creationism/intelligent design, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.

Skeptics such as James Randi have become famous for debunking claims related to some of these. Paranormal investigator Joe Nickell cautions, however, that "debunkers" must be careful to engage paranormal claims seriously and without bias. He explains that open minded investigation is more likely to teach and change minds than debunking.

A striking characteristic of the skeptical movement is the fact that while most of the phenomena covered, such as astrology and homeopathy, have been debunked again and again, they stay popular. Frazier reemphasized in 2018 that "[w]e need independent, evidence-based, science-based critical investigation and inquiry now more than perhaps at any other time in our history."

The scientific skepticism community has traditionally been focused on what people believe rather than why they believe—there might be psychological, cognitive or instinctive reasons for belief when there is little evidence for such beliefs. According to Hammer, the bulk of the skeptical movement's literature works on an implicit model, that belief in the irrational is being based on scientific illiteracy or cognitive illusions. He points to the skeptical discussion about astrology: The skeptical notion of astrology as a "failed hypothesis" fails to address basic anthropological assumptions about astrology as a form of ritualized divination. While the anthropological approach attempts to explain the activities of astrologers and their clients, the skeptical movement's interest in the cultural aspects of such beliefs is muted.

According to sociologist David J. Hess, the skeptical discourse tends to set science and the skeptical project apart from the social and the economic. From this perspective, he argues that skepticism takes on some aspects of a sacred discourse, as in Emile Durkheim's Elementary Forms of the Religious Life—Science, seen as pure and sacred (motivated by values of the mind and reason), is set apart from popular dealings with the paranormal, seen as profane (permeated by the economic and the social); obscuring the confrontation between science and religion. Hess states as well a strong tendency in othering: both skeptics and their opponents see the other as being driven by materialistic philosophy and material gain and assume themselves to have purer motives.

Perceived dangers of pseudoscience

While not all pseudoscientific beliefs are necessarily dangerous, some can potentially be harmful. Plato believed that to release others from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing. Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways. Bertrand Russell argued that some individual actions based on beliefs for which there is no evidence of efficacy, can result in destructive actions. James Randi often wrote on the issue of fraud by psychics and faith healers. Unqualified medical practice and alternative medicine can result in serious injury and death. Skeptical activist Tim Farley, who aims to create catalogue of harmful pseudoscientific practices and cases of damage caused by them, estimates documented number of killed or injured to be more than 600,000. Richard Dawkins points to religion as a source of violence (notably in The God Delusion), and considers creationism a threat to biology. Some skeptics, such as the members of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, oppose certain new religious movements because of their cult-like behaviors.

Leo Igwe, Junior Fellow at the Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies and past Research Fellow of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), wrote A Manifesto for a Skeptical Africa, which received endorsements from multiple public activists in Africa, as well as skeptical endorsers around the world. He is a Nigerian human rights advocate and campaigner against the impacts of child witchcraft accusations. Igwe came into conflict with high-profile witchcraft believers, leading to attacks on himself and his family.

In 2018, Amardeo Sarma provided some perspective on the state of the skeptical movement by addressing "the essence of contemporary skepticism and [highlighting] the vital nonpartisan and science-based role of skeptics in preventing deception and harm." He emphasized the dangers of pseudoscience as a reason for prioritizing skeptical work.

Pseudoskepticism

Richard Cameron Wilson, in an article in New Statesman, wrote that "the bogus sceptic is, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer". Some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial, Holocaust denial and climate change denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics". This is despite their cherry picking of evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief. According to Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his 2008 book Don't Get Fooled Again, the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".

Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion ...

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Bob Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."

History

Daniel Webster Hering author of Foibles and Fallacies of Science

Historical roots

According to skeptic author Daniel Loxton, "skepticism is a story without a beginning or an end." His 2013 article in Skeptic magazine "Why Is There a Skeptical Movement" claims a history of two millennia of paranormal skepticism. He is of the opinion that the practice, problems, and central concepts extend all the way to antiquity and refers to a debunking tale as told in some versions of the Old Testament, where the Prophet Daniel exposes a tale of a "living" statue as a scam. According to Loxton, throughout history, there are further examples of individuals practicing critical inquiry and writing books or performing publicly against particular frauds and popular superstitions, including people like Lucian of Samosata (2nd century), Michel de Montaigne (16th century), Thomas Ady and Thomas Browne (17th century), Antoine Lavoisier and Benjamin Franklin (18th century), many different philosophers, scientists and magicians throughout the 19th and early 20th century up until and after Harry Houdini. However, skeptics banding together in societies that research the paranormal and fringe science is a modern phenomenon.

Two early important works influential to the skeptical movement were Daniel Webster Hering's Foibles and Fallacies of Science (1924) and D. H. Rawcliffe's The Psychology of the Occult.

Loxton mentions the Belgian Comité Para (1949) as the oldest "broad mandate" skeptical organization. Although it was preceded by the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (VtdK) (1881), which is therefore considered the oldest skeptical organization by others, the VtdK only focuses on fighting quackery, and thus has a 'narrow mandate'. The Comité Para was partly formed as a response to a predatory industry of bogus psychics who were exploiting the grieving relatives of people who had gone missing during the Second World War. In contrast, Michael Shermer traces the origins of the modern scientific skeptical movement to Martin Gardner's 1952 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.

In 1968, the French Association for Scientific Information (AFIS) was founded. AFIS strives to promote science against those who deny its cultural value, abuse it for criminal purposes or as a cover for quackery. According to AFIS, science itself cannot solve humanity's problems, nor can one solve them without using the scientific method. It maintains that people should be informed about scientific and technical advancements and the problems it helps to solve. Its magazine, Science et pseudo-sciences, attempts to distribute scientific information in a language that everyone can understand.

CSICOP and contemporary skepticism

Influential North American skeptics: Ray Hyman, Paul Kurtz, James Randi and Kendrick Frazier

In 1976, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) since November 2006, was founded in the United States. Some see this as the "birth of modern skepticism", however, founder Paul Kurtz actually modeled it after the Comité Para, including its name. Kurtz' motive was being "dismayed ... by the rising tide of belief in the paranormal and the lack of adequate scientific examinations of these claims."

Kurtz was an atheist and had also founded the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. While he saw both aspects as being covered in the skeptical movement, he had recommended CSICOP to focus on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims and to leave religious aspects to others. Despite not being the oldest, CSICOP was "the first successful, broad-mandate North American skeptical organization of the contemporary period", popularized the usage of the terms "skeptic", "skeptical" and "skepticism" by its magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, and directly inspired the foundation of many other skeptical organizations throughout the world, especially in Europe.

These included Australian Skeptics (1980), Vetenskap och Folkbildning (Sweden, 1982), New Zealand Skeptics (1986), GWUP (Austria, Germany and Switzerland, 1987), Skepsis r.y. (Finland, 1987), Stichting Skepsis (Netherlands, 1987), CICAP (Italy, 1989) and SKEPP (Dutch-speaking Belgium, 1990).

Besides scientists such as astronomers, stage magicians like James Randi were important in investigating charlatans and exposing their trickery. In 1996 Randi formed the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and created the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, where anyone who could demonstrate paranormal abilities, under mutually agreed-upon controlled circumstances, could claim the prize. After Randi's retirement in 2015, the Paranormal Challenge was officially terminated by the JREF with the prize unclaimed:

Effective 9/1/2015 the JREF has made major changes including converting to a grant making foundation and no longer accepting applications for the Million Dollar Prize from the general public.

Other influential second-generation American organizations were The Skeptics Society (founded in 1992 by Michael Shermer), the New England Skeptical Society (originating in 1996) and the Independent Investigations Group (formed in 2000 by James Underdown).

After 1989

After the Revolutions of 1989, Eastern Europe saw a surge in quackery and paranormal beliefs that were no longer restrained by the generally secular Communist regimes or the Iron curtain and its information barriers. The foundation of many new skeptical organizations was as well intending to protect consumers. These included the Czech Skeptics' Club Sisyfos (1995), the Hungarian Skeptic Society (2006), the Polish Sceptics Club (2010) and the Russian-speaking Skeptic Society (2013). The Austrian Skeptical Society in Vienna (founded in 2002) deals with issues such as Johann Grander's "vitalized water" and the use of dowsing at the Austrian Parliament.

The European Skeptics Congress (ESC) has been held throughout Europe since 1989, from 1994 onwards co-ordinated by the European Council of Skeptical Organizations. In the United States, The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) hosted by the JREF in Las Vegas had been the most important skeptical conference since 2003, with two spin-off conferences in London, UK (2009 and 2010) and one in Sydney, Australia (2010). Since 2010, the Merseyside Skeptics Society and Greater Manchester Skeptics jointly organized Question, Explore, Discover (QED) in Manchester, UK. World Skeptics Congresses have been held so far, namely in Buffalo, New York (1996), Heidelberg, Germany (1998), Sydney, Australia (2000), Burbank, California (2002), Abano Terme, Italy (2004) and Berlin, Germany (2012).

In 1991, the Center for Inquiry, a US think-tank, brought the CSICOP and the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) under one umbrella. In January 2016, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science announced its merger with the Center for Inquiry.

Notable skeptical projects

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

Susan Gerbic of GSoW and four other CSI fellows in 2018: (left to right: Kendrick Frazier, Ben Radford, Mark Boslough, and Dave Thomas)

In 2010, as a form of skeptical outreach to the general population, Susan Gerbic launched the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) project to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia. In 2017, Gerbic (who was made a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in 2018) and her GSoW team received an award from the James Randi Educational Foundation which "is given to the person or organization that best represents the spirit of the foundation by encouraging critical questions and seeking unbiased, fact-based answers. We are pleased to recognize Susan's efforts to enlist and train a team of editors who continually improve Wikipedia as a public resource for rationality and scientific thought."

In July 2018, Wired reported that the GSoW team had grown to more than 120 volunteer editors from around the world, and they were collectively responsible for creating or improving some of Wikipedia's most heavily trafficked articles on skeptical topics. As of July 2018, GSoW had created or completely rewritten more than 630 Wikipedia articles in many languages, which together have accumulated over 28 million page visits.

Scientific dissent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_dissent

Scientific dissent is dissent from scientific consensus. Disagreements can be useful for finding problems in underlying assumptions, methodologies, and reasoning, as well as for generating and testing new ways of tackling the unknown. In modern times, with the increased role of science on the society and the politicization of science, a new aspect gained prominence: effects of scientific dissent on public policies.

Scientific dissent is distinct from denialism, which is a deliberate rejection of scientific consensus usually for commercial or ideological reasons.

Dissent as part of scientific inquiry

Miriam Solomon in her book Social Empiricism argues that scientific dissent is the normal state of scientific inquiry, rather than a conflict situation that needs resolution. She argues that disagreements of individual scientists about the proper direction of research are not cause for concern, because scientific rationality must be assessed at the level of the scientific community. As long as all theories being pursued yield some unique empirical successes, Solomon argues that their pursuit is worthwhile and even consistent with the common view that science aims at truth. In Solomon's view, competing scientific theories can even be inconsistent with one another while each containing some degree of truth. Empirical evidence may not be sufficient to distinguish between competing theories, and successful theories often have core assumptions that are incorrect.

Historical scientific dissent

A number of famous scientists have been sceptical of what were, or came to be, mainstream scientific positions. For example, Ernst Mach famously declared in 1897: "I don't believe that atoms exist!" Wilhelm Ostwald expressed a similar scepticism about atoms, but changed his mind in 1908.

In the early 20th century, peptic ulcers were believed to be caused by stress and dietary factors. The physicians Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed in 1982 that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori was responsible, but the medical community was slow to make appropriate changes in ulcer treatment.

Suppressed dissent

Scientific debate is a healthy and necessary part of science, but scientific debate may collide with power dynamics within the academic world. Suppression of legitimate scientific debate can be considered as a breach of academic integrity. Examples of suppression include journal editors rejecting a paper for political reasons prior to peer-review, refusing access to data for research which might draw negative conclusions about the safety of some commercial product, and putting pressure on a university to fire a dissenting researcher.

False scientific dissent

In modern times proponents of science denialism, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories often try to disguise their viewpoints as "scientific dissent" to take an advantage of the benefit of doubt. Such cases are typically recognized by lack of crucial elements of scientific approach: insufficient evidence base, lack of rigor and control, etc.

Lack of discussion of claims coming from fringe science may be presented as suppression by mainstream science. This was described as "manufacturing dissent" and discussed in the context of neo-creationism.

David Harker in the introduction to his book Creating Scientific Controversies, summarizes the history how tobacco industry worked towards manufacturing a controversy regarding the health effects of tobacco.

In what is sometimes known as the "Galileo gambit," pseudoscientists will sometimes compare themselves to Galileo, arguing that opposition from established scientists is actually a point in favour of their ideas. Jean Paul Van Bendegem writes that "No doubt the most famous example of mistaken analogy is the abuse of Galileo Galilei's case resulting in his conviction by the Holy Inquisition. The basic strategy consists of equating Galileo with the poor astrologer or parapsychologist and equating the Inquisition with the scientific establishment."

Effect on modern public policies

Views which disagree with scientific consensus may have an adverse effect on the perception of science by general public and affect decision making in various policies. When prominently promoted without due proportion, dissenting views can create an impression of uncertainty to laypeople. Common examples of such situation include global warming controversy and issues of public health and genetically modified organisms. Therefore, scientists treat scientific dissent as problematic when it may have a significant impact on public and policy-making, and try to mitigate it.

Inmaculada de Melo-Martín and Kristen Intemann criticize three major strategies in battling allegedly dangerous scientific dissent: masking the dissent, silencing the dissent, and discrediting the dissenters. Melo-Martin and Intermann argue that these strategies come from a misdiagnosis: the real problem is not dissent, but public scientific illiteracy. Rather than focusing on dissent, scientists must concentrate on educating the general public, so that people could make educated opinions and recognize false claims and invalid arguments. They further argue that silencing dissent rather than promoting literacy incurs the risk of undermining the public trust in science.

Sheila Jasanoff, in the context of climate change, mentions a common argument that public opinion is poorly informed because petroleum industry manufactures uncertainties and the media exaggerate the dissent, but argues that it is insufficient for the understanding of the problem. She writes that studies of scientific controversies show that credibility of science depend not only on strong scientific consensus, but also on the persuasive power of those who speak for science, especially in the situations of controversy.

Toba catastrophe theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory 

 

Youngest Toba eruption
Artist's impression of the eruption from about 42 kilometres (26 mi) above Northern Sumatra
Volcano	Lake Toba Caldera
Date	75,000 ± 900 years BP
Type	Ultra-Plinian
Location	Sumatra, Indonesia 2.6845°N 98.8756°ECoordinates: 2.6845°N 98.8756°E
VEI	8
Impact	Second-most recent supervolcanic eruption; impact disputed
Lake Toba is the resulting crater lake

The Youngest Toba eruption was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred around 75,000 years ago at the site of present-day Lake Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia. It is one of the Earth's largest known explosive eruptions. The Toba catastrophe theory holds that this event caused a global volcanic winter of six to ten years and possibly a 1,000-year-long cooling episode.

In 1993, science journalist Ann Gibbons posited that a population bottleneck occurred in human evolution about 70,000 years ago, and she suggested that this was caused by the eruption. Geologist Michael R. Rampino of New York University and volcanologist Stephen Self of the University of Hawaii at Manoa support her suggestion. In 1998, the bottleneck theory was further developed by anthropologist Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Both the link and global winter theories are controversial. The Youngest Toba eruption is the most closely studied supervolcanic eruption.

Supervolcanic eruption

The Youngest Toba eruption occurred at the present location of Lake Toba in Indonesia, about 75,000 ± 900 years BP according to potassium argon dating. This eruption was the last and largest of four eruptions of the Lake Toba Caldera during the Quaternary period, and is also recognized from its diagnostic horizon of ashfall, the Youngest Toba tuff. It had an estimated volcanic explosivity index of 8 (the highest rating of any known eruption on Earth); it made a sizable contribution to the 100 × 35 km caldera complex. Dense-rock equivalent (DRE) estimates of eruptive volume for the eruption vary between 2,000 km³ and 3,000 km³; the most common DRE estimate is 2,800 km³ (about 7×10¹⁵ kg) of erupted magma, of which 800 km³ was deposited as ash fall.

The erupted mass was, at the very least, 12 times greater than that of the largest volcanic eruption in recent history, the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia, which caused the 1816 "Year Without a Summer" in the Northern Hemisphere. Toba's erupted mass deposited an ash layer of about 15 centimetres (5.9 in) thick over the whole of South Asia. A blanket of volcanic ash was also deposited over the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea, and the South China Sea. Deep-sea cores retrieved from the South China Sea have extended the known reach of the eruption, suggesting that the 2,800 km³ calculation of the erupted mass is a minimum value or even an underestimate. Based on new methods (crystal concentration and exponential), the Lake Toba Caldera possibly erupted as much as 3,200 km³ of ignimbrite and co-ignimbrite.

Volcanic winter and global cooling computer models

Geologist Michael R. Rampino and volcanologist Stephen Self argue that the eruption caused a "brief, dramatic cooling or 'volcanic winter'", which resulted in a drop of the global mean surface temperature by 3–5 °C (5.4–9.0 °F). Evidence from Greenland ice cores indicates a 1,000-year period of low δ¹⁸O and increased dust deposition immediately following the eruption. The eruption may have caused this 1,000-year period of cooler temperatures (stadial), two centuries of which could be accounted for by the persistence of the Toba stratospheric loading. Rampino and Self believe that global cooling was already underway at the time of the eruption, but that the process was slow; the Youngest Toba tuff "may have provided the extra 'kick' that caused the climate system to switch from warm to cold states". Although Clive Oppenheimer rejects the hypothesis that the eruption triggered the last glaciation, he agrees that it may have been responsible for a millennium of cool climate prior to the 19th Dansgaard–Oeschger event.

According to Alan Robock, who has also published nuclear winter papers, the Toba eruption did not precipitate the last glacial period. However, assuming an emission of six billion tons of sulphur dioxide, his computer simulations concluded that a maximum global cooling of approximately 15 °C (27 °F) occurred for three years after the eruption, and that this cooling would last for decades, devastating life. Because the saturated adiabatic lapse rate is 4.9 °C/1,000 m (1.5 °C/1,000 ft, 2.7 °F/1,000 ft) for temperatures above freezing, the tree line and the snow line were around 3,000 m (9,800 ft) lower at this time. The climate recovered over a few decades, and Robock found no evidence that the 1,000-year cold period seen in Greenland ice core records had resulted from the Toba eruption. In contrast, Oppenheimer believes that estimates of a drop in surface temperature by 3–5 °C are probably too high, and he suggests that temperatures dropped only by 1 °C. Robock has criticized Oppenheimer's analysis, arguing that it is based on simplistic T-forcing relationships.

Despite these different estimates, scientists agree that a supervolcanic eruption of the scale at the Lake Toba Caldera must have led to very extensive ash-fall layers and injection of noxious gases into the atmosphere, with worldwide effects on weather and climate. In addition, the Greenland ice core data display an abrupt climate change around this time, but there is no consensus that the eruption directly generated the 1,000-year cold period seen in Greenland or triggered the last glaciation.

Physical data contradicting the winter hypothesis

In 2013, archaeologists, led by Christine Lane, reported finding a microscopic layer of glassy volcanic ash in sediments of Lake Malawi, and definitively linked the ash to the 75,000-year-old eruption at the Lake Toba Caldera, but found no change in fossil type close to the ash layer, something that would be expected following a severe volcanic winter. They concluded that the eruption did not significantly alter the climate of East Africa, attracting criticism from Richard Roberts. Lane explained, "We examined smear slides at a 2-mm interval, corresponding to subdecadal resolution, and X-ray fluorescence scans run at 200-µm intervals correspond to subannual resolution. We observed no obvious change in sediment composition or Fe/Ti ratio, suggesting that no thermally driven overturn of the water column occurred following the Toba supereruption." In 2015, a new study on the climate of East Africa supported Lane's conclusion that there was "no significant cooling associated with Mount Toba".

Genetic bottleneck theory

Genetic bottleneck in humans

The Youngest Toba eruption has been linked to a genetic bottleneck in human evolution about 70,000 years ago, which may have resulted in a severe reduction in the size of the total human population due to the effects of the eruption on the global climate. According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals. It is supported by some genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.

Proponents of the genetic bottleneck theory (including Robock) suggest that the Youngest Toba eruption resulted in a global ecological disaster, including destruction of vegetation along with severe drought in the tropical rainforest belt and in monsoonal regions. A 10-year volcanic winter triggered by the eruption could have largely destroyed the food sources of humans and caused a severe reduction in population sizes. These environmental changes may have generated population bottlenecks in many species, including hominids; this in turn may have accelerated differentiation from within the smaller human population. Therefore, the genetic differences among modern humans may reflect changes within the last 70,000 years, rather than gradual differentiation over hundreds of thousands of years.

Other research has cast doubt on a link between the Lake Toba Caldera and a genetic bottleneck. For example, ancient stone tools in southern India were found above and below a thick layer of ash from the Youngest Toba eruption and were very similar across these layers, suggesting that the dust clouds from the eruption did not wipe out this local population. Additional archaeological evidence from southern and northern India also suggests a lack of evidence for effects of the eruption on local populations, leading the authors of the study to conclude, "many forms of life survived the supereruption, contrary to other research which has suggested significant animal extinctions and genetic bottlenecks". However, evidence from pollen analysis has suggested prolonged deforestation in South Asia, and some researchers have suggested that the Toba eruption may have forced humans to adopt new adaptive strategies, which may have permitted them to replace Neanderthals and "other archaic human species".

Additional caveats include difficulties in estimating the global and regional climatic impacts of the eruption and lack of conclusive evidence for the eruption preceding the bottleneck. Furthermore, genetic analysis of Alu sequences across the entire human genome has shown that the effective human population size was less than 26,000 at 1.2 million years ago; possible explanations for the low population size of human ancestors may include repeated population bottlenecks or periodic replacement events from competing Homo subspecies.

Genetic bottlenecks in other mammals

Some evidence points to genetic bottlenecks in other animals in the wake of the Youngest Toba eruption. The populations of the Eastern African chimpanzee, Bornean orangutan, central Indian macaque, cheetah and tiger, all recovered from very small populations around 70,000–55,000 years ago.

The separation of the nuclear gene pools of eastern and western lowland gorillas has been estimated to have occurred about 77,700 years ago.

Migration after Toba

The exact geographic distribution of anatomically modern human populations at the time of the eruption is not known, and surviving populations may have lived in Africa and subsequently migrated to other parts of the world. Analyses of mitochondrial DNA have estimated that the major migration from Africa occurred 60,000–70,000 years ago, consistent with dating of the Youngest Toba eruption to around 75,000 years ago.

Criticism

A 2018 study by Chad Yost and colleagues of cores from Lake Malawi dating to the period of the Youngest Toba eruption showed no evidence of a volcanic winter, and they argue that there was no effect on African humans. In the view of John Hawks, the study confirms evidence from a variety of studies that the eruption did not have a major climatic effect or any effect on human numbers.

Politicization of science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science 

The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom, and as a result it is considered taboo to mix politics with science. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.

Overview

Many factors can act as facets of the politicization of science. These can range, for example, from populist anti-intellectualism and perceived threats to religious belief to postmodernist subjectivism, fear for business interests, institutional academic ideological biases, or potentially implicit bias amongst scientific researchers. 

Politicization occurs as scientific information is presented with emphasis on the uncertainty associated with the interpretation of scientific evidence. The emphasis capitalizes on the lack of consensus, which influences the way the studies are perceived. Chris Mooney describes how this point is sometimes intentionally ignored as a part an "Orwellian tactic." Organizations and politicians seek to disclaim all discussion on some issues as 'the more probable conclusion is still uncertain' as opposed to 'conclusions are most scientifically likely'  in order to further discredit scientific studies.

Tactics such as shifting conversation, failing to acknowledge facts, and capitalizing on doubt of scientific consensus have been used to gain more attention for views that have been undermined by scientific evidence. "Merchants of Doubt," ideology-based interest groups that claim expertise on scientific issues, have run successful "disinformation campaigns" in which they highlight the inherent uncertainty of science to cast doubt on scientific issues such as human-caused climate change, even though the scientific community has reached virtual consensus that humans play a role in climate change.

William R. Freudenburg and colleagues have written about politicization of science as a rhetorical technique and states that it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof in an argument. He offers the example of cigarette lobbyists opposing laws that would discourage smoking. The lobbyists trivialize evidence as uncertain, emphasizing lack of conclusion. Freudenberg concludes that politicians and lobby groups are too often able to make "successful efforts to argue for full 'scientific certainty' before a regulation can be said to be 'justified' and maintain that what is needed is a balanced approach that carefully considers the risks of both Type 1 and Type 2 errors in a situation while noting that scientific conclusions are always tentative.

President of the industry advocacy group American Council on Science and Health Hank Campbell and microbiologist Alex Berezow have described "feel-good fallacies" used in politics, where politicians frame their positions in a way that makes people feel good about supporting certain policies even when scientific evidence shows there is no need to worry or there is no need for dramatic change on current programs. They have claimed that progressives have had these kinds of issues with policies involving genetically modified foods, vaccination, overpopulation, use of animals in research, nuclear energy, and other topics.

Politicization by advocacy groups

A political tactic, sometimes used to delay the implementation of legislation to control potentially harmful activities, is the "Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method" (SCAM). In many cases, there is a degree of uncertainty in scientific findings and this can be exploited to delay action, perhaps for many years, by demanding more "certainty" before action is taken.

Global warming

Both mainstream climatologists and their critics have accused each other of politicizing the science behind climate change. There is a scientific consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.

In 1991, a US corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a public relations organization called the "Information Council on the Environment" (ICE). ICE launched a $500,000 advertising campaign to, in ICE's own words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." Critics of industry groups have charged that the claims about a global warming controversy are part of a deliberate effort to reduce the impact any international treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, might have on their business interests.

In June 2005, John Vidal, environment editor of The Guardian, asserted the existence of US State Department papers showing that the Bush administration thanked Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the industry advocacy group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.

In 2006, Guardian columnist George Monbiot reported that according to data found in official Exxon documents, 124 organizations have taken money from ExxonMobil or worked closely with those that have, and that "These organizations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled 'junk science'. The findings they welcome are labelled 'sound science'." The "selective use of data", cherry picking, is identified as a notable form of scientific abuse by the Pacific Institute, an organization created to provide independent research and policy analysis on issues at the intersection of development, environment, and security.^[18]

Intelligent design

The intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute, attempts to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". The Discovery Institute portrays evolution as a "theory in crisis" with scientists criticizing evolution and that "fairness" and "equal time" requires educating students about "the controversy."

A cornerstone of modern scientific biological theory is that all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent with modification. While many valid criticisms to the theory of evolution have existed throughout time, often certain ideological proponents seek to expand the scope of these disagreements in order to draw doubt onto the entire theory. For example, in the United States, there is a legal precedent of those who sought to discredit the teaching of evolution in classrooms by emphasizing so-called flaws in the theory of evolution or disagreements within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the mainstream scientific community about the validity of the main pillars of theory of evolution at this time. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is thus not primarily scientific one.  The 2005 ruling in the Dover trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the claims of intelligent design proponents were considered by a United States federal court concluded that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Tobacco and cancer

A cigarette carton warns about the health risks of smoking. Public awareness was delayed by a SCAM (Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method).

By the mid-1950s there was a scientific consensus that smoking promotes lung cancer, but the tobacco industry fought the findings, both in the public eye and within the scientific community. Tobacco companies funded think tanks and lobbying groups, started health reassurance campaigns, ran advertisements in medical journals, and researched alternate explanations for lung cancer, such as pollution, asbestos and even pet birds. Denying the case against tobacco was "closed," they called for more research as a tactic to delay regulation. John Horgan, notes a rhetoric tactic that has been used by tobacco companies. It is summarized in a line that appeared in a confidential memo from a tobacco company, in 1969, when they sought to cast doubt on evidence that supports smoking causes cancer. It read, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

Eugenics

Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was well known for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of Racial Hygiene. The Nazis manipulated scientific research in Germany, by forcing some scholars to emigrate, and by allocating funding for research based on ideological rather than scientific merit.

In the early 20th century, Eugenics enjoyed substantial international support, from leading politicians and scientists. The First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people.

The level of support for Eugenics research by the Nazis prompted an American Eugenics advocate to seek an expansion of the American program, with the complaint that "the Germans are beating us at our own game".

There was a strong connection between American and Nazi Eugenics research. Nazis based their Eugenics program on the United States' programs of forced sterilization, especially on the eugenics laws that had been enacted in California.

Government politicization

Soviet Union

In the Soviet Union, scientific research was under strict political control. A number of research areas were declared "bourgeois pseudoscience" and forbidden. This has led to significant setbacks for the Soviet science, notably in biology due to ban on genetics and in computer science, which drastically influenced the Soviet economy and technology.

United States

The General Social Survey (GSS) of 1974 recorded that conservatives had the highest rates of trust in science between the three major political demographics; conservatives, liberals, and moderates. This study was repeated annually between 1972 through 1994, and biannually from 1994 until 2010. In 2010 when the same study was repeated, conservatives trust rates had decreased from 49% to 38%, moderates from 45% to 40%, and liberals staying relatively stable, rising slightly from 48% to 50%.

The study by Gordon Gauchat, which investigates time trends in the public trust of science in the United States, suggests that the increase of distrust of conservatives can be attributed to the two cultural shifts. The first was during the post-Reagan era when the New Right emerged, and the second during the G.W. Bush era when the NR intensified and conservatives commenced the “war on science”.

Barack Obama and other politicians, since Bush's presidency, have expressed their concerns with the politicization of science in both the public and government sphere. In 2011, during his State of the Union speech, Obama discussed his dissatisfaction of the relationships between organized science, private economic interests, and the government.

The data collected in this study reveals the Public Trust in Science, the Public Confidence in Science, and the Predicted Probabilities between Liberals and Conservatives. The survey examines variables including gender, ethnicity, level of education, income, religion, age, political party preference, political demographics, and changes over time. Conclusively, the empirical findings of this study have shown that although the distrust of conservatives has increased over time, the overall public trust in science has not changed since the 1970s.

George W. Bush administration

In 2004, The Denver Post reported that the George W. Bush administration "has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee." At least 20 of these former industry advocates helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. "They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates."

Also in 2004, the scientific advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science which charged the following:

A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies.

A petition, signed on February 18, 2004, by more than 9,000 scientists, including 49 Nobel laureates and 63 National Medal of Science recipients, followed the report. The petition stated:

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.

The same year, Francesca Grifo, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, stated "We have reports that stay in draft form and don't get out to the public. We have reports that are changed. We have reports that are ignored and overwritten."

In response to criticisms, President Bush in 2006 unveiled a campaign in his State of the Union Address to promote scientific research and education to ensure American competitiveness in the world, vowing to "double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years."

Surgeon General

Richard Carmona, the first surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush, publicly accused the administration in July 2007 of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Carmona testified.

Although he did not make personal accusations, the Washington Post reported on July 29 that the official who blocked at least one of Carmona's reports was William R. Steiger.

Food and Drug Administration

In July 2006 the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released survey results that demonstrate pervasive political influence of science at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Of the 997 FDA scientists who responded to the survey, nearly one fifth (18 percent) said that they "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document." This is the third survey Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted to examine inappropriate interference with science at federal agencies.

The Department of Health and Human Services also conducted a survey addressing the same topic which generated similar findings. According to USA Today, a survey of Food and Drug Administration scientists by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that many scientists have been pressured to approve or reject new drugs despite their scientific findings concerns. In July 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists released survey results that they said "demonstrate pervasive political influence of science" at the Food and Drug Administration.

United States Department of the Interior

On May 1, 2007, deputy assistant secretary at the United States Department of the Interior Julie MacDonald resigned after the Interior Department Inspector General, Honorable Earl E. Devaney, reported that MacDonald broke federal rules by giving non-public, internal government documents to oil industry and property rights groups, and manipulated scientific findings to favor Bush policy goals and assist land developers. On November 29, 2007, another report by Devaney found that MacDonald could have also benefitted financially from a decision she was involved with to remove the Sacramento splittail fish from the federal endangered species list.

MacDonald's conduct violated the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703, Use of nonpublic information, and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101, Basic obligation of public service. MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on accusations that she had "violated the Endangered Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."

Climate Change

In December 2007, the Christian Science Monitor reported that at least since 2003, and especially after Hurricane Katrina, the George W. Bush administration broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as edited scientists' congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions. Those who have studied organizations that set up to delay action and manufacture uncertainty about the well-established scientific consensus have divided their tactics into three steps: first, deny that there is a problem, second, make the case that there are benefits involved, and, third, insist that there is nothing that can be done.

In a study, "The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere" by Gordon Gauchat, Timothy O’Brien, and Oriol Mirosa, the researchers conclude that attitudes about environmental scientists as policy advisers are highly politicized. Their results demonstrate that, to be perceived by the public as a reputable policy advisor, the public's perception of their integrity and understanding weigh more strongly than their agreement with scientific consensus.

Waxman report

In August 2003, United States, Democratic Congressman Henry A. Waxman and the staff of the Government Reform Committee released a report concluding that the administration of George W. Bush had politicized science and sex education. The report accuses the administration of modifying performance measures for abstinence-based programs to make them look more effective. The report also found that the Bush administration had appointed Dr. Joseph McIlhaney, a prominent advocate of abstinence-only program, to the Advisory Committee to the director of the Centers for Disease Control. According to the report, information about comprehensive sex education was removed from the CDC's website.

Other issues considered for removal included agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and breast cancer; the report found that a National Cancer Institute website has been changed to reflect the administration view that there may be a risk of breast cancer associated with abortions. The website was updated after protests and now holds that no such risk has been found in recent, well-designed studies.

Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis

The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis is the belief that induced abortions increase the risk of developing breast cancer. This belief is in contrast to the scientific consensus that there is no evidence suggesting that abortions can cause breast cancer. Despite the scientific community rejecting the hypothesis, many anti-abortion advocates continue to argue that a link between abortions and breast cancer exists, in an effort to influence public policy and opinion to further restrict abortions and discourage women from having abortions. While historically a controversial hypothesis, the debate now is almost entirely political rather than scientific.

The most notable example of the politicization of this topic was the modification of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) fact sheet by the George W. Bush administration from concluding no link to a more ambiguous assessment regarding the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, despite the NCI's scientifically-based assessment to the contrary.

United States House Science Subcommittee on Oversight

In January 2007, the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology announced the formation of a new subcommittee, the Science Subcommittee on Oversight, which handles investigative and oversight activities on matters covering the committee's entire jurisdiction. The subcommittee has authority to look into a whole range of important issues, particularly those concerning manipulation of scientific data at Federal agencies.

In an interview, subcommittee chairman Rep. Brad Miller pledged to investigate scientific integrity concerns under the Bush Administration. Miller noted that there were multiple reports in the media of the Bush Administration's manipulation of science to advance his political agenda, corrupt advisory panels, and minimize scientific research with federal funds. Miller, as part of the House Committee of Science and Technology, collected evidence of interference with scientific integrity by Bush's political appointees.

Trump administration

Policy

The Trump administration marginalized the role of science in policy making, halted numerous research projects, and saw the departure of scientists who said their work was marginalized or suppressed. It was the first administration since 1941 not to name a Science Advisor to the President. In July 2018, Trump nominated meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier for the position, and Droegemeier was confirmed by the Senate on January 2, 2019, the final day of the 115th United States Congress. He was sworn in by Vice President Mike Pence on February 11, 2019. While preparing for talks with Kim Jong-un, the White House did so without the assistance of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics. The position of chief scientist in the State Department or the Department of Agriculture was not filled. The administration nominated Sam Clovis to be chief scientist in the United States Department of Agriculture, but he had no scientific background and the White House later withdrew the nomination. The United States Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration disbanded advisory committees.

Climate change

Democrats (blue) and Republicans (red) have long differed in views of the importance of addressing climate change, with the gap widening in the late 2010s mainly through Democrats' share increasing by more than 30 points.
(Discontinuity resulted from survey changing in 2015 from reciting "global warming" to "climate change".)

The issue of politicized science surfaced during the 2016 United States presidential campaign by then Republican candidate Donald Trump. Trump stated his intention to strip NASA's Earth Science division of its funding, a move that "would mean the elimination of NASA's world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena". Subsequently, the Trump administration successfully nominated Jim Bridenstine, who had no background in science and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change, to lead NASA. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Energy prohibited the use of the term "climate change". In March 2020 The New York Times reported that an official at the Interior Department has repeatedly inserted climate change-denying language into the agency's scientific reports, such as those that affect water and mineral rights.

Health

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration replaced career public affairs staff at the Department of Health and Human Services with political appointees, including Michael Caputo, who interfered with weekly Centers for Disease Control scientific reports and attempted to silence the government's most senior infectious disease expert, Anthony Fauci, "sowing distrust of the FDA at a time when health leaders desperately need people to accept a vaccine in order to create the immunity necessary to defeat the novel coronavirus." One day after President Donald Trump noted that he might dismiss an FDA proposal to improve standards for emergency use of a coronavirus vaccine, the Presidents of the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine issued a statement expressing alarm at political interference in science during a pandemic, "particularly the overriding of evidence and advice from public health officials and derision of government scientists".

The administration reportedly sent a list to the CDC on words that the agency was prohibited from using in its official communications, including "transgender", "fetus", "evidence-based", "science-based", "vulnerable", "entitlement", and "diversity". The Director of the CDC denied these reports.

Biden administration

As part of an effort to “refresh and reinvigorate our national science and technology strategy,” President Elect Joe Biden announced, before taking office, that he will elevate the role of Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to a cabinet level position.

Scholarly studies of the politics of science

The politicization of science is a subset of a broader topic, the politics of science, which has been studied by scholars in a variety of fields, including most notably Science and Technology Studies; history of science; political science; and the sociology of science, knowledge, and technology. Increasingly in recent decades, these fields have examined the process through which science and technology are shaped. Some of the scholarly work in this area is reviewed in The Handbook of Science & Technology Studies (1995, 2008), a collection of literature reviews published by the Society for Social Studies of Science. There is an annual award for books relevant to the politics of science given by the Society for Social Studies of Science called the Rachel Carson Prize.