The Eco-fundamentalists principal goal seems to be the wanton and total annihilation of rational debate. - Rated 
An absolutely fantastic book.
In an ideal world, one not controlled by doomsayers, fear-mongers and sensationalist headline grabbers - this excellent book would be on the school science curriculum throughout Europe.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (which makes a refreshing change!).
Just read it!
Eulogy to science - Rated 
Dick, Lord Taverne, Liberal-Democrat peer but former barrister and Labour minister, makes a case that the scientific method be accorded qualitatively greater respect than various "pseudo-sciences". He documents how people in the UK in particular, and in the West in general, have come to regard science with suspicion and distrust whereas until just fifty years ago it was seen positively (but perhaps rather too uncritically) as a source of further developments that would make the world a better place.
He deals initially with three specific examples: alternative medicines (mostly snake oil, at best placebos), organic farming (not as good for the world as you might think) and GM crops (a development that could already have made a massive positive impact in the third world in particular, with no negative side effects that any respectable scientists have been able to demonstrate).
He then moves on to look at some themes of anti-science. Eco-fundamentalism is a catch-all for those who oppose scientific developments but do not use the scientific method. He characterises them as having closed minds: Lord Melchett, Director of Greenpeace, he quotes as an example, having said that he would oppose GM crops "permanently, definitely and completely" irrespective of any new evidence about them. He points out the similarity of this approach and fundamental religious beliefs. He exposes the "Precautionary Principle" espoused by many eco-fundamentalists (and several others) as a precept that might be used to justify our stopping scientific progress altogether.
Like Taverne, I am not a scientist, but also like him I understand and admire the scientific principle. A scientist posits a theory (often based on experimental work); his peers seek to disprove that theory. No scientific theory can be proven, "proof" in this context really amounting only to not having been dis-proven for quite a time. "Peer review" is of course a feature of non-scientific academia as well, but in science theories can be very conclusively disproven in a way that is often not possible in social sciences and the humanities. It is in theory, at least, more rigorous. Taverne points out that the "facts" used by eco-fundamentalists have often been used without any peer review, and continue to be bandied about even after then have been conclusively disproved by the scientific community. He cites the case of Dr Arpad Pusztai whose allegation that GM potatoes were demonstrably unhealthy led to talk of "Frankenfoods" and was significant in bringing about an effective end to GM development in Europe. Having been used indiscriminately by journalists in pursuit of a good story, the same journalists were (un)surprisingly silent when the good doctor was rejected by the scientific community. Would that journalists would make the effort to understand the difference between peer reviewed and other papers, and would reflect that in their writing. The problem, of course, is this would in many cases make for less arresting headlines!
Taverne's style is one of gentle polemic - gentler certainly than Dawkins, similar perhaps to Lomborg, both of whom he clearly admires. My own approach was, I admit, already very much in tune with Taverne's in the first place, but he has succeeded in shaking me out of complacency in having accepted some of these untruths. Whereas, for example, I would have taken the view that while GM foods might have certain advantages, it was indeed fair to ban them according to a precautionary principle. I realise now that the consequence of that ban is that many people in the third world, who might already be benefiting from GM crops, are still living more impoverished, less healthy lives than they would if certain GM crops had been developed, and we in Europe had not closed our minds to buying them.
If I have a criticism, it is this. He overdoes the extent to which scientists are always genuinely neutral in the pursuit of greater understanding. All too often, sadly, scientists become victims of their own preconceptions and prejudices, and their science a crusade to prove their old argument right in the face of mounting evidence that they are wrong. Equally, all too human social networks and obligations undermine peer review and honest criticism. Group think sets in: see Booker & North (2007) "Scared to Death". While Taverne reminds us that the scientific method is a powerful tool in the quest for knowledge, he does rather give the impression that scientists are, per se, above ordinary human failings, and sadly that is not also the case.
On Podmore's review - Rated 
I am afriad W. Podmore has made a logical error in his review of Taverne's March of Unreason. Absence of evidence is NEVER evidence of absence. Only in special cases does absence of evidence provide even weak "evidence" there being little or no evidence.
A useful antidote to unreason - Rated
Dick Taverne has worked in industry, law and government and is now a Liberal-Democrat member of the House of Lords. In this useful book, he looks at the connections between science and democracy and at fundamentalism's threats to them both.
His theme is, "If you abandon any concern for evidence or pretence at reason, you open the door wide to more dangerous charlatans, the peddlers of racial hatred, or those other devotees of the irrational, the religious fundamentalists who seek a return to the days when religious dogmatism ruled and freedom of thought was suppressed."
In his chapter on medicine, he praises osteopathy for being properly regulated in Britain, unlike most other kinds of alternative medicine. He notes that some alternative practices, like aromatherapy and Indian head massage, are pleasant and harmless.
But Taverne condemns Ayurvedic medicine and homoeopathy for diverting patients away from good medical practice. He points out that anyone with cataracts who chose the Ayurvedic remedy - `brush your teeth and scrape your tongue, spit into a cup of water and wash your eyes with this mixture' - would not get better. Similarly, homoeopathy, based on the `law of infinitesimals' - the more a medicine is diluted, the more effective it will be, i.e. less is more - would not help anyone with a serious illness.
He notes that herbal products are unregulated (unlike pharmaceutical drugs), so users risk adverse effects. Tests on the most popular herbal products, arnica and echinacea, proved that they don't work and are no better than placebos.
Taverne then looks at the scare about the MMR vaccine, started by Dr Andrew Wakefield's speculations that autism might be due to bowel disease, which might in turn be due to the vaccine. Wakefield produced no evidence, instead calling a press conference to denounce the vaccine. The media danced to Wakefield's dramatic tune and ignored all the proof that the vaccine did not cause autism.
In a section on genetic modification, Taverne makes a good case for the safety and utility of GM foods. Even America's finest lawyers cannot find evidence of damage to health, and absence of evidence of harm is evidence of absence of harm.
On global warming, he again warns against media hype. He points out that all the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's global warming predictions depend on its unbelievably high forecasts of economic growth in the Third World.
In Taverne's last chapter he writes, "politicians do in fact compromise, listen to the other side, and are willing to modify their own position in the light of public discussion and public reaction." We know that members of the House of Lords can be a little divorced from reality, but did Lord Taverne not notice Thatcher or Blair?
As he notes, "Authoritarian institutions ... press on with mistakes long after they have begun to produce unintended and harmful consequences." Mistakes like privatising our National Health Service, devolution, EU membership, occupying Iraq, deindustrialisation, destroying the apprenticeship system? Perhaps he should check his own assumptions against the evidence.
The Rantings of a Tyrannical Technocrat - Rated 
Review by James Wilsdon
The Financial Times, FT Magazine, April 15 2005
The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism
by Dick Taverne
Oxford University Press GBP18.99, 310 pages
Lord Taverne is a man with a mission. In 2002, angered by the public backlash against genetically modified crops, the Liberal Democrat peer founded a pressure group, Sense About Science, "to promote an evidence-based approach to scientific issues".
Like every political movement, Sense About Science requires a manifesto, a core body of arguments around which its followers can rally. The March of Unreason sets out to perform this task.
Taverne's central message is that science is under siege. Environmentalists are leading the charge by promoting a dangerous mix of anti-technological Luddism, precautionary regulation and an irrational faith in organic agriculture. Organisations such as Greenpeace display a form of "eco-fundamentalism", which ignores any scientific evidence that fails to support its pre-ordained views. This tendency was particularly marked in the battle over GM crops, but applies equally to campaigns against chemicals and waste incinerators.
A second line of attack is from postmodernists, whose notions of science as a social construct have assaulted "the very citadel of science itself, its claim to objectivity". The notion that science is not simply the value-free pursuit of truth, but is shaped by social factors and the assumptions of scientists themselves, has eroded trust in science. It is also to blame, argues Taverne, for the misguided view that there should be more public dialogue, accountability and "democratic control" within science.
If science is not defended from the "pessimists and the anti-science brigade", Taverne warns that the engine of innovation that has sustained economic and social progress since the Enlightenment is likely to stall. Even democracy itself is threatened, as "the eco-warriors have encouraged a general cynicism about government and authority, have encouraged the public to support widespread corporate conspiracies against the public good and have added to the widespread suspicion that already exists of almost every kind of expertise."
Fundamentalism is rarely attractive, and Taverne is most effective when documenting the occasional excesses of the green movement. He also makes some thoughtful points about the limits of the precautionary principle as a framework for dealing with the uncertainties inherent in new technologies. Throughout, it is clear that he is motivated by a genuine passion and enthusiasm for science.
It is a shame, then, that this passion leads him to argue in such strident tones. The delicate interplay between science, risk and democracy demands serious analysis and reflection. But any subtleties in these debates are drowned in the torrent of polemic poured onto those he condemns as the "enemies of reason". Near the start of the book he decries those who "use evidence selectively and unscrupulously to bolster prejudice, and who go through the motions of inquiry only to demonstrate some foregone conclusion". A more apt description of Taverne's own method it would be hard to find.
Two flaws in Taverne??s argument stand out. First, he offers a one-dimensional account of the relationship between science and the environment. He takes a particular case - that of GM crops - where environmentalists found themselves at loggerheads with the scientific establishment, and uses this to argue that almost all environmentalists are anti-science. In doing so, he sidesteps the fact that the green movement was born out of a greater scientific understanding of the earth, and that environmentalists today rely heavily on scientific evidence to underpin campaigns and policies on climate change, renewable energy and biodiversity. Most green groups now employ scientists, sit on scientific funding panels, and argue consistently for more research into environmental solutions.
Further signs of Taverne??s confusion on environmental questions appear in his discussion of climate change. While he accepts that some global warming is happening, he strays close to a sceptical position in considering what we should do about it. Here is an issue where the scientific position is clear-cut: the overwhelming consensus of the world??s climatologists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is that urgent action is required. Yet Taverne cannot bring himself to line up with the scientists if they and Greenpeace are on the same side.
Second, Taverne is mistaken in his belief that science will be strengthened by being insulated from accountability and democracy. He caricatures the case for public engagement in science, by likening it to inviting a referendum on whether the earth goes round the sun or vice versa.
But of course, it is nothing of the sort. Science takes place within society and much of it is paid for by our taxes, so it is perfectly reasonable to expect scientists to take account of public values, aspirations and concerns. Dialogue about the future direction of science is an important component of a well-oiled democracy. Involving the public at an early stage in controversial areas such as stem cell research can help to avert potential conflicts. Most importantly, as many scientists now acknowledge, tapping into different sources of public knowledge and social intelligence can enrich the culture and practice of science. People may not have "expert" knowledge, as traditionally defined, but this does not mean that they have nothing to contribute to scientific decision-making.
In attacking one form of fundamentalism, Taverne supplants it with his own: a naive and outdated scientism. His is a world in which science can do no wrong; in which research is untainted by vested interests, and companies such as Monsanto exist purely to feed the hungry. Those seeking a more thoughtful encounter with the contemporary dilemmas and opportunities of science are advised to march elsewhere.
James Wilsdon is head of science and innovation at the think-tank Demos
|
