Science and Democracy: Uneasy Bedfellows

Glen Garvin of the Miami Herald wrote a very interesting column this week.  It is precisely the kind of analysis I like to write, but calling out the left instead of the right.  So, I like that.  In fact, I have often searched for just this type of analysis. So, I like it and at the same time, I don’t. 

I can feel myself too eager to reject his arguments with all the lame, half-ass, arm-chair, dismissive responses we hear from the right in the face of scientific claims about climate change or rape, evolution or…part of me wants to say ‘you name it,’ but Garvin’s column challenges this notion.

Garvin catalogues cases where “the Luddite shock troops of progressivism like Greenpeace” cynically advance political positions that are contrary to the best available data (a favorite phrase of mine when I am excoriating the right for homologous failures).

His list includes opposition from the left to genetically modified foods, blocking ‘golden rice,’ which is modified to contain vitamin A, from saving half-a-million children from going blind each year, and half of these die.  Just like I do, he chooses to use a figure that is lower than figures cited in other research, to ensure his claims are solid.

The benefits of golden rice, according to Garvin, have not prevented Greenpeace (and others on the left) from “fighting a scorched-earth war to stop golden rice.”  Up to this point I am intrigued.  I have done some reading on genetically modified foods.  Not a lot. 

I understand that the science is new: exciting possibilities, unknown risks.  Some scientists are concerned not enough testing has been done, but their voices are muted. The US government and corporate sector have been leaders worldwide in advancing these products, opposing efforts to label foods for fear that consumers will not purchase them (out of ignorance or intelligence remains the question).

So, at this point I am ready to turn on the dismissive engines.  Then I read:

“What role does science play in the left-wing opposition to golden rice and other genetically modified crops? None. Study after study has shown no detectable deleterious effects on human health from genetically altered foods. And two studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition have shown that golden rice is an even better vehicle for delivery of vitamin A than spinach, the wonder vegetable.

Every time some lone Republican nut from Hooterville makes a jackass statement about rape or evolution, it’s immediately ascribed as a doctrinal belief of the entire GOP and conservatives in general. But liberal resistance to science is far more organized, far more destructive and far less covered in the media.”

Now I am seriously interested in what Garvin has to say, because I could have written this first paragraph about climate change or…you name it?  And the second paragraph makes me think: damn, I do that.  Isn’t it accurate, since these Hooterville commentaries advertise the same message contained in forced ultrasound legislation, legislation redefining rape, and more…which are all statements from the GOP elite, right?  And can the left ever be accurately described as organized? 

Garvin continues his list of leftist anti-intellectualism to include concerns about a connection between autism and vaccinations, quoting President Obama as sharing this concern, and concerns about nuclear power plants, where he includes a similarly shocking (to me) reference to data challenging what I take to be common sense about the carnage associated with the Chernobyl disaster.

“Actual [Chernobyl] death toll, according the U.N.’s scientific committee on nuclear radiation: less than 100. Actual birth defects: zero….  There may be good reasons for opposing nuclear power — mainly, that the industry is a bloated corporate welfare tick that cannot survive without massive government subsidy — but science isn’t one of them, which is why a 2009 Pew Research Center survey showed 70 percent of scientists support it.”

This is where my first instinct is to do what I would not due to a Paul Krugman piece…wonder what a UN scientific committee on nuclear radiation might be, without capitalization?  Sound suspicious.  Of course, what that means as I think it is, sounds unfamiliar; does not reinforce what I already think to be true.  At this point I decide to blog, rather than spend time pouring over www.factcheck.com or www.politifact.org to sort it all out. 

Of course, it is possible that Garvin has his science wrong, just as it is possible that I have my science wrong.  It is even more important, however, to recognize that neither of us has our own science, and at the same time, even scientific truths remain provisional, because like all human products, these emerge from, and live within, communities of experts and change over time.

So, rather than try to find the ‘one right answer’ (which usually just happens to coincide with what I already thought), I want to thank Garvin for a column well written.  It made me think and rethink, and for that, thanks.  But if anyone does have the scientific data to blow him out of the water, call me.