The moment of truth for science

Abstract

EDITOR’S NOTE: Peter Weingart ruminates on the repercussions of the explosive growth of science. One result is differentiation — the creation of new niches in response to economic pressures, as well as meta-sciences dedicated to “sorting, categorising and reconstructing” scientific knowledge. The upshot, of course, is that scientists are more and more specialized and less and less aware of the Big Picture. Another ramification is that science has expanded into new fields, and particularly into fields with political and economic implications: exotic specializations such as social risk assessment and environmental psychology. Dependent on the media to disseminate findings (and stimulate funding), science prostitutes itself to lowbrow sensationalism. As science is commercialized, it is also politicized. A prime example of the unholy alliance of science, media, and politics is the brouhaha over global warming. Dire warnings lead to increased funding and to more (and more specialized) research – but not to solutions. Meanwhile, the public becomes inured to scientific cassandras, and there is increasing danger that an actual looming catastrophe (or simply a serious problem) will be overlooked. What is needed, concludes Weingart, is a means of validating truth. “If science fails to produce reliable knowledge, the media will demand it and politics will create the necessary trust through legal frameworks.” But should we buy into Weingart’s faith in the ultimate ability of science to “produce trust and confidence”? Reprinted with permission from EMBO reports, Vol 3, No 8, page 703–706, issue of Aug 2002 (doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kvf165). Copyright © 2002 by European Molecular Biology Organization.