UK - BBC2 9pm Monday - Science under attack

[Matty1973]

The sometimes excellent Horizon series focuses tonight on:

Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.

He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.

This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.

This link may take those with BBC iplayer access (UK IP address required) to the show once it has been broadcast.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Good programme, though there's going to be hell to pay at work tomorrow from the resident AGW denier who sits next to me.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Will watch it later - was watching Harry (possibly) getting murdered on Witless Silence at the time it was on.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Will watch it later - was watching Harry (possibly) getting murdered on Witless Silence at the time it was on.

Who'd have thought cutting up dead bodies could be so dangerous?

 

[John Hewitt]

I saw it tonight. It was a good show and I haven't seen him speak before, so that was interesting too.

He talked mainly about three issues, global warming, HIV as the cause of AIDS and genetically modified crops. In all of those cases, scientists can, with reason, present themselves as the good guys, fighting ignorance and ideology.

However, there have been and are cases where the opposite is true, where scientists have been the idealogues. Nurse never seem to acknowledge the role such cases could have played in creating the mistrust in science that is presently found among some members of the public. Maybe I am wrong, but my guess is that he will never front such a programme.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes, an excellent programme. Sadly those who most need to see it won't, of course.

I see what the Radio Times meant about the absurdity of Telegraph columnist James Delingpole lecturing a Nobel prize winning scientist about what science is and isn't, what a pillock he looked. At least Nurse got him to admit he never read any of the peer reviewed science because he didn't have the time or the necessary expertise. Apparently other people who do have the time and expertise interpret it, and he then "interprets their interpretations".

I must say I was shocked when Phil Jones told Nurse the CRU once got 50 FOI requests over a single weekend. I hadn't realised the harrassment was ever that organised, or that bad.

 

[Lothian]

However, there have been and are cases where the opposite is true, where scientists have been the idealogues. Nurse never seem to acknowledge the role such cases could have played in creating the mistrust in science that is presently found among some members of the public. Maybe I am wrong, but my guess is that he will never front such a programme.

I thought he did point that out.

 

[edd]

Good programme, though there's going to be hell to pay at work tomorrow from the resident AGW denier who sits next to me.

I thought that it did a delightful job of giving James Delingpole the opportunity to commit intellectual suicide.

On Googling, he thinks of it more as rape than suicide - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/24/james-delingpole-tv-interview
but I would beg to differ.

 

[Pixel42]

Guardian review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/25/horizon-science-under-attack-review

 

[Matthew Best]

I didn't see the programme but I did enjoy one of the comments in the Guardian review which set out an exchange of emails between the commenter and Delingpole.

From: James
Subject: Qualifications

Message Body:
Dear Mr. Delingpole,

I, like you, believe that climate change is an important issue. I believe that this is a highly complicated area requiring specialist expertise and knowledge. I am not a scientist and therefore, much like a court of law would, I have to rely on the expert testimony of others when forming my opinion on the issue. I therefore must be guided by what the concensus of those relevant experts appears to be.

I understand that you are an English Literature graduate. This, I believe it is fair to say, means that you simply are not qualified to evaluate or challenge the scientific evidence. To do so demonstrates an ignorance of the subject matter that forms the subject matter of a great deal of your work. The question is why? You are clearly not a stupid man but possibly you are blinded by arrogance into an overestimation of your own abilities. Or perhaps there is an ulterior motive, money or a hatred of those 'types' that you see on the other side of the debate. The reason, ultimately, is irrelevant but it is shame that you do not value intellectual honesty as much as you appear to favour polemic.

Yours,

Mr James Arbuthnot

From: James Delingpole
Subject: Re: Qualifications
To: "James"
Date: Monday, 24 January, 2011, 12:45

Dear James Arburthnot, I would be most intrigued to learn what gives you the authority to write such a patronising letter. Do tell me, pray, what special insights you have into the complexities of climate science which enable you to deliver ex cathedra verdict on the "truth" of global warming. Explain, please what reason you have to doubt the expert opinions of the many thousands of scientists from Richard Lindzen to Fred Singer who dispute the so-called "consensus." Then perhaps I might take your inquiry more seriously.

Yours James Delingpole

Dear James,

I am completely, unreservedly and magnificently unqualified to make an assessment of the scientific debate, just like you. The difference is, only one of us is deluded enough to believe that they are.

I do not deliver a verdict on climate change, but I use rational judgment to determine the basis upon which I should form my opinion, namely, identifying and relying on the consensus view. I note from your recent blog that you do not believe that such a consensus exists, although your logic eludes me. It appears that, to you, unless a theory can be proved in the "open or semi-open market" it lacks validity. This is a novel interpretation of how scientific theory should be tested and the mind boggles at how many well-founded and uncontroversial scientific theories would evaporate under the scrutiny of your Delingpole Test. (James, I think we should let the scientific community know about this new test before they waste any more time blundering around in the darkness, free from the beautiful light that shines incandescent from your Eng Lit degree.)

Your second ground for challenging the consensus is pure conspiracy theory - 'they are all corrupt!' - your logic squeals. I learnt long ago, that to attempt to argue rationally with the conspiracy theorist is as fruitful as a nuclear winter. I won't try. I thank you for your response as its shrill character tells me a great deal more about why you carry the fife and drum of a movement that has so little intellectual credibility. I will not find self-awareness here and I will not keep looking.

All the best,

James

 

[Debaser]

I've got to admit I was gobsmacked when the professor let slip the titbit that when polled, most people don't like the thought of eating GM crops 'because they contain genes'.

Que?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've got to admit I was gobsmacked when the professor let slip the titbit that when polled, most people don't like the thought of eating GM crops 'because they contain genes'.

Que?

Yeah, these are the people Mr. Lansley wants to influence the direction of healthcare in the UK.