Lawrence Krauss, chair of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University, has argued that in public discussion and debate the odds are stacked against science (1). Modern science and technology have made possible things that were only dreamed of a century or two ago. Thus it is difficult to convince the typical nonscientist that a limitless supply of energy cannot be had, for example, or even that hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, is not itself a source of energy but rather is potentially a new means of transmitting energy from one place to another.

Another argument suggests that science is unfair because it values some ideas above others. That science values some ideas over others is true, but I doubt that any scientist would say that it is unfair. The principal theme of science is that many ideas can be tested against observation and experiment, and only those that have so far been able to pass such tests are worthy of being accepted as science. A given idea might fail tomorrow’s test, and some scientists will continue looking for facts that contradict accepted ideas. Ignoring these aspects of science makes rational scientific debate impossible and often restricts the public’s ability to make reasoned judgments.
One such example is the political debate about global warming. Despite the best efforts of the National Academy of Sciences to summarize scientific consensus (2), it is still possible for U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, to strongly imply that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American People”. As the basis for his interpretation of scientific consensus, Inhofe listened to testimony from a total of three scientists, two from the same research institute (3). The Environmental Protection Agency is not much better. Its Draft Report on the Environment, published this year (4), was sufficiently politicized that nearly all mention of global warming was deleted (5). The one-paragraph section devoted to global warming says that the report “does not attempt to address the complexities of this issue”, and refers readers to a 10-year plan for climate-change research. In the accompanying Technical Document, at the end of a seven-page section on stratospheric ozone, the same single paragraph appears. And there is no reference whatever to the National Academy’s 2001 report (ref 2) on global warming.

As I was composing this editorial, I came across an article about the great London smog of 1952 (6). Weeks after the smog episode, London authorities realized that it had resulted in 4000 deaths from respiratory ailments in a five-day period. The episode’s horrible effects rallied support for controlling air pollution, and some results of this can be seen in the EPA report (ref 4). For example, the level of acid deposition in the northeastern U.S. has decreased significantly between 1990 and 2000. During the first half of the 20th century there was little monitoring of environmental quality, and a major disaster was required to induce action to curb emissions. Today we monitor the environment much more thoroughly and effectively, but monitoring will do little good unless the public heeds the messages sent by the monitors.

What can we teachers do? For students we can provide a strong background in the process of science and in scientific ethics. We can encourage students to apply such knowledge wisely throughout their lives. For the public at large, we can speak out in favor of real science at every opportunity. It is possible that the current scientific consensus on global warming is based on incomplete evidence, but global warming ought not be dismissed as unscientific or a hoax, and scientists ought not allow that to happen. As we celebrate National Chemistry Week, we should resolve to support chemistry and science as strongly as we can.

Literature Cited

1. Krauss, Lawrence M. New York Times, Tuesday, April 30, 2002, p D3.
2. The National Academy of Sciences has a Web site devoted to global change; a recent report summarizing accepted science on global warming is Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Sciences, National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2001 (accessed Aug 2003).
3. Revkin, Andrew C. New York Times, Tuesday, August 5, 2003, p D2.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Report on the Environment (accessed Aug 2003).
5. Revkin, Andrew C. New York Times, Thursday, June 19, 2003, p A1, A21.
6. Nagourney, Eric. New York Times, Tuesday, August 12, 2003, p D2.