Science/pseudoscience editorial

Thanks for your upbeat and informative editorial ("Science Always Trumps Pseudoscience," January/February 2004). If traditional pseudoscience is on the decline, that is excellent news--but there are other negative trends that worry me. I have a growing concern over limitations imposed on research for political or social reasons. Biotech firms are leaving Silicon Valley because there are so few stem-cell lines available in the U.S. for medical research. Those who control the U.S. census are unwilling to use standard statistical approaches to correct for sampling errors. In California there has been a move to stop collecting ethnic data, one effect of which would be to make it impossible to identify race-based inequities in the application of education. Voices are often raised against collecting and analyzing information that would determine the effectiveness of laws, the social consequences of stiff sentences for marijuana users, or the deterrent effects of capital punishment. The DOE is still using "lie detector" screening to identify security risks. No one seems to be interested in evaluating the effectiveness of antiterrorism initiatives such as passenger screening in airports. And it is difficult to undertake rational comparisons of the risks of basing an energy policy on fossil fuels versus nuclear generation of electricity.

With a level playing field, science will win, but I am less confident if the playing field is tilted for ideological reasons. Advances in science often have negative impacts on some segments of society. If our leaders perceive the costs of new knowledge as unacceptable to them or their constituents, they could effectively discourage certain lines of research.