<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I have a new OpEd in the <a
href="http://www.morganhilltimes.com/opinion/256577-get-the-science-right-then-deal-with-the-results">Morgan
Hill Times</a> today. <br>
__<br>
<span class="style3 style11">Americans, dependent on the products of
science, seemingly incapable of getting by without their cell phone or
laptop, are also strangely reluctant to take science seriously, to
reason from what science tells us about the nature of the world we live
in to putting what science reveals to use in our lives. The result may
well be that our future will be determined not by what we have learned
but rather by what we have chosen to ignore.<br>
<br>
No two areas of
inquiry illustrate my point better than the current controversies
surrounding climate change and evolution. Both the concepts are so well
accepted within the scientific community that their usefulness is no
longer challenged. Yet both face heated, emotional opposition from
people who approach these issues from a different basis than that of
science. Frequently, it is the same people who take such an
anti-scientific stance and argue against both.<br>
<br>
The case against
climate change is similar to the case for tobacco, in that it has
active corporate lobbyists. The deniers tactic is to challenge the
legitimacy of the science with careful attacks on the integrity of the
scientists, claiming that it is all a scheme to get more grant money.
Some cite fictional lists of scientists who supposedly question the
climate change conclusions. The only problem is that the lists are
fakes. Some of the so-called scientists have no expertise in the
matter. Others actually support the idea of climate change.<br>
<br>
This
fictional list is even being promoted by a U.S. Senator, James Inhofe
(R.-Okla.) and the falsehoods are being spread with taxpayer money.
That is about as efficient as any lobbyist can be … to have the U.S.
Senate sending out their misinformation. In almost all their claims,
they call global warming a theory with the implication that the theory
is not an accepted fact. Thus climate change deniers can continue to
behave as always without consideration of the consequences.<br>
<br>
The
issues surrounding evolution are much deeper and the implications of
accepting scientific explanation for the fact that there are so many
species living on this planet go much deeper. At a very basic level,
evolution is the process by which living things change, over time, to
become very different than their ancestors. The mechanism by which
specific changes are passed on to future generations is through the
encoding of information in our DNA.<br>
<br>
I don't know why we are
willing to accept entertainment where mutation creates super heroes and
are not willing to accept that a similar series of genetic changes has
brought us to the point where we are. I also don't know why we accept
that DNA makes it possible to solve crimes or to unlock the causes of
diseases like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis and still do not
accept that such changes will, over time, lead to the emergence of new
species. If the mechanism is operative of one process, it is operative
for another.<br>
<br>
Accepting the facts of evolutionary biology means
we have to give consideration to the idea that there is a genetic
factor in behavior. That is why comparative studies of twins are
important, especially those who may have been separated by birth and
have been raised by very different families. These provide an
opportunity to have real data through which to make judgments about the
relative importance of nature, our genetic origin, nurture and the
environment in which we live. They have all made us the people who we
are.<br>
<br>
For some, admitting that evolution has any role in behavior
puts limits on the idea of free will. How can someone be viewed as evil
if their actions are predetermined by genetics? In terms of the current
political climate in California, how can we deny anyone a legal right
such as marriage if sexual preference proves to be a question of
genetics and not just of a choice?<br>
<br>
With both climate change and
evolution, the answers that we need will not be arrived at by the
denial of the science. If you have paid any attention to Public
Broadcasting fundraisers over the past year, you have heard the term
brain elasticity, the idea that our brains respond to repeated actions
and continue to grow, to expand for much of our lives. Yet we also know
that some things are just impossible to master no matter how much we
try.<br>
<br>
The relationship between genetics and life experiences are
not yet fully understood. The answers that we seek need be discovered
by further exploration, further study and not by denying the facts that
present themselves.<br>
<br>
We seem all too willing to be confused by
the dual meanings of the word "theory." Colloquial use treats a theory
like a hypothesis, something that remains to be proven. Wikipedia
defines a scientific theory as "a well-substantiated explanation of
some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have
been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."<br>
<br>
Let's get the science right and deal with the consequences.</span><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
Wes Rolley
17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.refpub.com/">http://www.refpub.com/</a> -- Tel: 408.778.3024</pre>
</body>
</html>