Eureka!

Amid this hectic week filled with flu bugs and packing bags I heard someone on a political debate show of some sort mention that science should be allowed to operate on its own, without politicians telling scientists what is right or wrong. This person seemed to think that at some point in the history of America that this unfettered scientific pursuit was allowed to take place. At first, I agreed. When I actually thought about it, however, I realized that this seemed to be rose-colored nostalgia. When was this great time of scientific free thinking? Perhaps during the Scopes-Monkey trial, when a Kansas teacher was facing incarceration for teaching evolution? One can think back all the way to the days of Galileo or Copernicus and see that science was always treated as a fantastic thing, as long as it didn’t upset the established order too much. Or as long as it made obnoxious amounts of money, of course. Now the traditional foil or science has been religion. Although many people fly the flag of faith when combating a scientific advancement or concept that they disagree with because it is a convenient rallying point rather than the major point of contention. Even today there are several issues relevant to current politics that would be better served by allowing scientists and experts to do the necessary research and experimentation to give unbiased results. I’d like to break down a few of these issues and clarify what is known through experiment and observation without the slant that politicians and the television media tend to put on things.

Though the debate about evolution has waned some with much of the country’s focus centered on the economy first and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan second, there are many states in the country that still attempt to find alternative theories to teach their children. I think the main problem in this debate is the public misconception of the word “theory” as it pertains to the scientific method. In the states that teach Creationism or Intelligent Design, the claim that is made is that if one theory can be taught, then so can another. However, a theory in science isn’t just their best guess at how something might work. It is a principle verified though thorough experimentation and observation. A key element of something becoming an accepted theory is that the experiments must be able to be repeated anywhere at any time with the same results. The concepts discussed as alternatives to evolution would be very welcome in a discussion on philosophy or religion, but they cannot be verified through the scientific method. That being the case, it would be very hard to make a case for including those topics in a science class.

More contentious is the issue of global warming although, these days, the debate has switched its focus greatly. As I write this, there are no American or international organizations of science that disagree with the basic concept that the world’s median temperature is increasing and that human byproducts are at least partly to blame. It is true that some television personalities will still claim the concept is a hoax, but these people are increasing moved to the extremes. They are the exception rather than the rule. Today the debate is centered on ways to combat or adapt to climate change. The leading school of thought is to simply limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that can be released into the atmosphere. These are the gasses in our atmosphere that, at their naturally occurring levels, keep our planet at the pleasant, livable temperature we are so familiar with. When their levels go to high, too much radiation is trapped within the atmosphere and temperatures rise. However, if these gasses were completely removed the Earth’s temperature would be about 59 degrees colder. Currently, the international treaty that governs greenhouse emission is the Kyoto Protocol, and it is ratified by every leading producer of these gasses in the world except the United States. In its current form, it is set to expire in 2012, but a meeting is set to convene in late 2009 to discuss a new treaty. The only two options left to the United States if we choose not to limit our greenhouse gas production would be to simply adapt our society to permanent higher temperatures or to use technology to somehow control the climate. The latter has been suggested, but no projects are known to have been proposed or undertaken.

Perhaps no scientific issue has been more contentious than the use of human embryonic stem cells for research. By definition, a stem cell is any cell that can reproduce itself through cell division and differentiate the copies into any number of cell types. There are several types of stem cells, but the ones that most concern the topic at hand are found in human embryos.  They are generally harvested about 4-5 days after fertilization, and these cells can become nearly any type of cell in the human body. Because of the nature of some types of cells, especially neural cells which largely do not divide or regenerate, there is great hope that stem cell research can be used to discover treatments for many currently incurable ailments. At this time, no embryonic stem cell research has yielded an approved treatment for any condition, but the scientific community remains optimistic. Contrary to popular belief, this research has never been banned in the United States. Then President George W. Bush merely removed all funding to establish new lines of embryonic stem cells. President Obama signed into law this year a provision that would allow such funding from the government again. There is also some hope that adult stem cells could be used in this research to similar effect so that the objection to destroying a human fetus would be removed. There are many good arguments both for and against the use of embryonic stem cells in the quest for treatments for a plethora of conditions. My hope is that people will take the time to consider the science and the empirical evidence collected before they rush to any knee-jerk reactions. The worlds of religion, philosophy, and science need not be mutually exclusive. In these issues and any future disputes that arise between the politicians and scientists, I simply ask that we allow these people to do what we pay them to do, and we take their advice seriously. Science doesn’t yet have an answer for everything, but that in no way invalidates the answers it has brought to light.