In February, NBC televised a movie called "Terminal" about a physician who had discovered the cure for a particular form of cancer. Rather than simply revel in his discovery, he sought out wealthy patients who were in the hospital for other ailments, surreptitiously infected them with this form of cancer (which he apparently could induce to appear in days like a bad cold), and then came to their rescue with his cure. These patients were so grateful that they showered him with funds to support his research. What was even more scurrilous than this far-fetched story, however, were the post-mortem comments shown with the credits. These claimed that scientists were competing for the monetary rewards that will come with the discovery of a cure for cancer and that "so far they have only discovered how to cause cancer."

The antiscience flavor of this piece is only one example of the attack on science that is occurring in the U.S. from all sides. From the left, the post-modernists declare that science does not really deal with facts and that accepted models only represent the opinion of the scientific establishment. Those with a particular social agenda rewrite the history of science and create scenarios that have little connection with reality and actual science. For example, the notorious Baseline Essay on Science adopted by the Portland (Oregon) Public Schools seeks to promote multiculturism by proposing fantastic contributions of ancient inhabitants of Africa (I.M. Klotz, Phi Delta Kappan, Nov., 1993, p. 266). These include knowledge about the moons of Jupiter, acquired in pre-telescope days through parapsychological powers. This essay also proposes that melanin can convert light to knowledge and can absorb the wave energy of magnetism. On the right, creationists want to teach religious concepts as science. On all fronts, spiritualism and mysticism abound, and a large fraction of the populace believes in ghosts, angels, ESP, astrology, and magic crystals.

Scientists usually respond to such attacks and anti-intellectualism from a defensive posture. We try to explain the fallacies in the arguments and hope that better education will undo the attackers. This approach has not worked very well in the past and it will be a disaster to wait the length of time it would take to produce an educated populace to deal with these immediate problems. Seventy years after the Scopes trial and the widespread teaching of evolution, school districts still are under attack by fundamentalists, and a law punishing teachers of evolution came close to passing in the Tennessee legislature.

It is time for scientific societies to take the offensive and attack the pseudoscience and misinformation that is eating away at our profession. For example, they could establish offices and member networks that could respond quickly to antiscience attacks and to aid groups fighting creationism and pseudoscience in their school districts. If the TV movie had the equivalent racial or sexual overtones, NBC would have been inundated with letters and protests, supported by a number of organizations. Yet we sit by and passively watch and hope that people will recognize the fantasy in the presentation.

Scientists should also confront the sociologists and philosophers at their institutions who are attacking the foundations of science. Presumably tenure decisions and promotions at universities are based on scholarship, and academic scientists must take an interest in the academic decisions in other departments on campus. This is not a question of academic freedom, but rather one of competency. We should expose political correctness and fundamentalism that leads to misconceptions and misinformation about science.

At the same time we should clean our own house and speak out when scientists overplay their findings or promise more than they can deliver. We must be totally honest when discussing the impact of our work in real world situations and in differentiating unsupported opinion from conclusions drawn from sound research. Shoddy work and bad science should be exposed. However, if the mainstream scientific organizations, like ACS, AAAS, NAS, CCR, and IUPAC, just sit back and watch, the future of science, at least in the U.S., is bleak indeed.

AAAS at the Millenium Board Position Paper

Respond to this comment in the AAAS Conversation on Science & Society

Response to Survey
Dr. C. Eugene Allen, Dr. Patricia A. Anderson, Dr. Richard Atkinson, Dr. Mary Ellen Avery, Dr. Dorothy F. Bainton, Dr. Allen J. Bard, Dr. Joost Businger, Dr. Barry Commoner, Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus, Dr. Joseph G. Gavin, Dr. Carroll Ann Hodges, Dr. Gerald Holton, Dr. Leon Lederman, Dr. William A. Lester, Jr., Dr. Simon Levin, Dr. Marcia C. Linn, Dr. Mike McCormack, Dr. Gerard Piel, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg