Dogmatic Science

Dogmatism in Science and Medicine
by Henry H. Bauer
McFarland & Company, 2012, 293 pages, $35

While working scientists, such as I was for over fifty years, have little regard for “scientific method”, which they consider to be as useful as ornithology is to birds, they exhibit certain characteristic attitudes, such as curiosity and scepticism. Among these is a belief that all knowledge is provisional. While strong and essentially universal, this belief is nuanced and does not normally fall into a Feyerabendian trap of “anything goes” or into postmodern excess in general, because it tacitly acknowledges the obvious fact that some knowledge (such as planetary mechanics, pathogens causing infections, the periodic table, circulation of blood, the structure and function of DNA) is a lot less provisional than other (such as dark matter, anthropogenic global warming, string theory, psychoanalysis).

In other words, dogmatism—that is, the holding of unshakeable beliefs against all evidence—is foreign to most scientists, who often have their own minor working hypotheses die and who typically see several paradigm-shifts in their own disciplines during their working lives. In spite of this, the history of science is replete with increasingly shaky theories being held well after their use-by date. Vitalist theory, phlogiston and the indivisibility of atoms held sway well into the nineteenth century, to choose relatively modern examples from that most hard-headed of sciences, chemistry. Often such theories persist because their proponents develop an unshakeable personal attachment to them. This is the basis of the famous remark by Max Planck, a giant of modern physics, that “science does progress, one funeral at a time”.

The above is uncontroversial, but Henry Bauer’s claim is not simply that examples of dogmatism in science exist, but that they are increasingly significant, stifle research, perpetuate errors and cause an enormous waste of resources. He further ties this in with the increasing corporatisation of research and concentration of funding, which tend to create “science monopolies”. In other words, we are dealing here with an example of Marx’s “a sufficiently large quantitative change becoming a qualitative change” and, in this case, a malevolent one.

While one could argue about details of specific examples, Bauer makes a convincing case and while it is most obvious in two paradigmal cases, namely the HIV/Aids theory and the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, he quotes other instances as well, including the date of first human occupation of America (“the Clovis Dogma”), the causes of extinction of the dinosaurs, details of the plate tectonics theory, the nature of the sense of smell, the beta-amyloid hypothesis for the genesis of Alzheimer’s disease, string theory and others. The first two examples, as well as scandals in the field of medical research, involve vast research support and important medical and economic decisions and can therefore be rationalised by considerations of conflicts of interest and contamination by money. However, much the same pattern of exclusion of non-mainstream views, refusal to engage with “heretics”, manipulation of grant systems and university appointments, effective censorship and ad hominem attacks, all carefully classified and documented by Bauer, are present in examples of dogmatism in esoteric fields like string theory and the causes of extinction of the dinosaurs.

Bauer is well aware that non-mainstream views in science segue into plain crankiness and his strongest test is the fact that, in each of the cases he quotes, the “heresies” are held by some exceptionally qualified “heretics”. In simple terms, views of a most highly regarded virologist, Professor Duesberg of Berkeley, or the doyen of atmospheric physics, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, cannot simply be ignored by the mainstream proponents of HIV/Aids hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis respectively. Their views cannot be accepted merely on grounds of authority, but they must be engaged with.

I fully agree and would like to add three personal observations concerning the AGW hypothesis derived from numerous conversations with academic scientists, none of them atmospheric physicists or belonging to the minuscule sect of climatologists. First, a substantial minority refuse to express an opinion on the ground that “it is outside my field”. Second, none I have met could be classified as an “alarmist” and the majority tend towards scepticism. Third, it is the tenured full professors close to retirement, or actually retired, who are the most strongly sceptical; Bauer makes the same observation. Draw your own conclusions.

A significant part of the book deals with medical research and its woes. However, I would have preferred Bauer to make this a separate issue: medical research is sufficiently different due to the involvement of pharmaceutical companies, layers of bureaucracy and clinicians for one thing. Nevertheless, I now know a lot more about it than I did before reading this book.

The weakest part of the book is in the final chapter dealing with remediation, where he throws up or disinters a number of ideas including an office of a scientific ombudsman, designated funding for non-mainstream research, and even a science court. They are unlikely to come about, which given the inevitable involvement of bureaucracy may not be a bad thing. One idea, of modifying the peer review system by removing the condition of anonymity, I would actually oppose: as an author, reviewer, editor and a member of several Australian Research Council grants panels for several years, I believe it would be more likely to destroy any value left in the peer review system. In any case, as Bauer notes, “if the dissidents are right the ruling paradigm will be overturned at some time in the future. The rub is that some time may be a very long time.” Personally, I am more (cautiously) optimistic: the collapse of one major paradigm—most likely the AGW—may have dramatic results. The problem is that it could also lead to a general loss of prestige of science.

These however are minor quibbles. Bauer raises important issues, possibly really central issues. The book is also full of insights peripheral to the central theme and contains, inter alia, a useful beginner’s guide to statistics.