Michael Crichton: Consensus Science is not Science
From a great speech by the late / great, Michael Crichton.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Filed under: Vaccines
This is nonsense, and for a very simple reason. Mr. Crichton seems to have no idea how science is done.
It works like this: You do an experiment. You get some results–data. As a scientist, you are an honest advocate for this data, and the point of view it leads you to. You submit your data–and an interpretation, in the form of a scientific article, to a scientific journal. The journal sends the the publication out to several reviewers–the scientist’s scientific peers–who evaluate the work on its scientific merits: Is the logic sound? Does the experimental procedure make sense? Is the data robust? Does the data support the author’s interpretations?
The decision whether to publish the paper is a key step in the acceptance of this new piece of work. If it doesn’t get published, it never enters the conversation.
If it does get published, it might still be ignored. Many scientific articles are never cited, or are cited only once–in other words, no one notices them. Citations are the currency of science. They are evidence that the work is supported by scientists. (That’s too simple of course; sometimes work is cited critically, and rejected.)
In other words, a piece of science that is not accepted by the community of scientists–that never wins “consensus”–never becomes a part of the scientific cannon.
Does that mean that it’s wrong? Usually, yes, it does. Despite what Crichton says here, the record of science on this count is extraordinarily good. Is it perfect? No. Are their mistakes? Absolutely. But even if it’s possible to point out many instances in the history of science where the consensus was wrong, initially and for many years, those cases are proportionately rare.
And of course the key point–and the point where Crichton is wrong on the basic logic–is that the only reason he can claim now that the consensus was wrong back then is that the consensus eventually changed.
Crichton’s real problem isn’t with consensus science. What he ought to have said is that sometimes the consensus is wrong.
For the readers of this site, the question is simply whether you ought to believe the scientists or the conspiracy theorists. Statistically you’re far better off betting on the scientists. And let me remind you that Crichton was a writer of thrillers who made a lot of money weaving clever conspiracy theories.
So get your science from the book store’s non-fiction shelf, not the fiction shelf. Your children will thank you.
I get what you are saying and rare or not, this is one of them. Am I objective? No, not really. My daughter had a seizures right after her 4 month vaccines.
* DTaP (SmithKline, Lot # 998A2)
* Comvax (Merck, Lot # 1827K)
* IPV (Pasteur, Lot # 81556)
* Prevnar (Lederle, Lot # 481556)
The medical establishment were totally clueless. They really didn’t even beleive us and wrote it up as “if it was a seizure, just febrile). All was fine for 4 months. Then came the next round of vaccines and immediately began seizures and a week in the hospital, then seizure med after seizure med.
I am only speaking of the 1/3 of kids who have seizures with autism. Which came first, the seizures or the autism? She had multiple LONG seizures. Seizures over 5 minutes can cause brain damage. Well she has brain damage. Her synapses are over excited. I don’t know if it was …
a) vaccines alone
b) vaccines + something genetic
c) vaccines = seizures = autism
d) vaccines = seizures + side effect of seizure drugs = autism
*) Does having a compromised immune system or being on antibiotics at the time of the vaccine injection play a role?
… but calling this case closed just doesn’t do it for me right now.
The whole consensus thing is more about shutting down debate. If that causes the scientist who may prove one of the above to not do his research because he went with the flow instead of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist” or “like the holocaust deniers” (which I hear all the time), that’s the tragedy.
It’’s the abuse of “consensus science” that is the problem and that is not in the spirit of science.
Now THAT’S a far stronger argument. Based on the published evidence, I still STRONGLY advise people to vaccinate their kids. But 1. I certainly understand your position (and you have my deepest sympathy), and 2., more to the point, you’re absolutely right that sometimes scientists use questionable rhetorical tactics to advocate their points of view.
As I wrote above, scientists serve as advocates of their own work, not impartial judges. Science depends on them being honest, principled advocates, and accepting the evidence when it turns against them. In writing up a scientific result for publication in peer-reviewed journals, scientists are making their best case for their own point of view. That case is constructed logically and scientifically, but it’s still a piece of rhetoric, and attempt to influence the opinions of peers.
And once a consensus is established, the scientific community can resist change to that consensus with more passion than is perhaps healthy. This is another way in which scientists serve as advocates. But sometimes they’re wrong of course. The question is, how can you know? How can you know anything, for that matter?
For all is imperfection, science is the best method (or set of methods) we’ve found for distinguishing fact from belief. There’s just no alternative, unfortunately. Some argue in favor of faith, or belief of various kinds, but, while it might make a person feel good, it doesn’t get anyone closer to knowing the truth.
I would encourage you to view your own–and your child’s–experiences scientifically. I do not know what caused your child’s illness. I won’t even argue that it wasn’t the vaccines. What I WILL argue is that the timing of events is NOT, by itself, sufficient evidence of cause and effect.
If you want to know whether there is really a link, there’s no choice but to look beyond you and your child’s own experiences. Look to science. Not to the scientific consensus–I’m not arguing for that–but to the complex, diverse effort to understand autism, brain chemistry, and human health. There may be consensus, but it’s not universal, and it could change. There probably are scientists out there advocating non-consensus points of view. Study their work–critically–and think for yourself. That’s healthy for science.
I will say this: It is irresponsible to oppose vaccination. On this the science could not be clearer. Regardless of any link to autism–whether it exists or doesn’t–vaccination is far less risky than no vaccination. There may be certain people for whom it is dangerous, but we don’t know how to identify those people, even if that’s true.
Be Well.
Jim
Yes, what does hit Harvard Medical School graduate know about science?