Becoming a science skeptic

No man is perfect. No man knows everything. Not everything that someone does, or says, should be believed.

There are many things in life that we accept to be true. 1+1 = 2. We will all die, eventually. If we don’t eat, we will lose weight.

When I was starting as a student of science, I believed everything my teachers said, everything that I read in books. When I started doing science myself, I began to see the realities of science. I was soon a skeptic. 

First, there are the uncertainties of a scientific result. We are taught, for example, that when we take a measurement, we should not trust our first result. We should measure again — and again. When we do an experiment twice, chances are we will not get the same result — even if we try to perform the experiment under the very same conditions. So, we repeat the experiment a reasonable number of times. And, very importantly, when we report the results, we include the variation in the results that we got. 

(For that reason, I don’t like being told, for example, that the glycemic index of papaya is 58 (from www.diabetesnet.com/ Jan. 1, 2011). My immediate reaction is: “Is it 58 +/- 1? Is it 58 +/- 50?” You see, the glycemic index of a certain food is the increase it causes in the blood sugar level of 10 test subjects relative to sugar. So, did all those 10 subjects give 58 for papaya? That is so improbable. To me, it is totally unscientific to give a single number for the glycemic index of any food.)

(Back to science) Now, what do people do if they get a result that is wildly different from the rest? Do they include it in their report? Do they discard it? If, while performing the experiment that gave that wildly different result, they had bumped the measuring instrument, or the power went off briefly, or some other catastrophe happened, then they have a legitimate reason to discard the result. If, however, that result had been obtained using the same care and under the same circumstances as the others, what should people do? I say the result should be included (accompanied by an attempt to explain the existence and possible cause of the discrepancy). But many might simply discard it.

It turns out that even some very distinguished scientists had been suspected of “massaging” their data.

For example, here’s part of the Wikipedia entry (retrieved on Dec. 29, 2010) on Robert Millikan, a Nobel Prize winner who determined the charge of the electron: “Data selection controversy — There is some controversy over selectivity in Millikan’s use of results from his second experiment measuring the electron charge.”

Then, there is outright falsification of data.

Here’s part of the Wikipedia entry (retrieved on Dec. 29, 2010) on Sir Cyril Burt: “Burt is known for his studies on the heritability of IQ. Shortly after he died, his studies of inheritance and intelligence came into disrepute after evidence emerged indicating he had falsified research data.”

Here’s a more recent example of scientific fraud.

From an article by I. Oransky in The Scientist, published on Jan. 10, 2006 (http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22933/): “A summary released today by Seoul National University (SNU) of an investigation into the work of Hwang Woo-Suk confirmed what many have feared and believed true since ethical and scientific doubts about his work began to surface in November: All of the human cloning claims made by Hwang were fabricated.” 

There are many other scientists who have been accused, suspected, or proven guilty of scientific dishonesty and wrongdoing. And what is sad is the fact that many of the papers reporting the fraudulent “science” were published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

(Review of articles prior to publication is usually done by “peers,” that is, by “experts” in the field. But no expert can know everything and some things escape even an expert’s careful scrutiny.)

So, which articles in science journals are to be believed? 

Most of them, it turns out. An overwhelming majority of the science reported in the literature is honest and could be believed.

A word of caution, though. I have learned through the years that even if everything is done right, many reported results are soon supplanted by better results. In fact, many scientific “truths” have not survived the test of time. New things are discovered even as you read this piece. And many books are quickly out of date and obsolete. (It could take two years for a book to go through review (if it is reviewed at all), copy editing, proofing, printing, etc.)

How can we know which ones not to believe?

If you are actively working on a particular subject and you are keeping up with the work of others, then your reaction when you read a new article, or hear of a new result, might be: “Hmmm, that’s interesting!” or “Nah, it doesn’t make sense!” That is, you can make an informed opinion.

But what if you are just starting? Well, you could ask someone who knows. Or, better yet, you could dig deeper into the subject on your own (read as much background information as you have time for) and make your own opinion. If you do not have much time, you should at least learn the basics.

It is actually best to learn the concepts and pay less attention to the details. Although concepts could change, they usually don’t undergo radical change. But that is not true of details. Techniques are continually being improved and more sophisticated instruments are being built, and those will give more accurate results and better details.

And, be like me; be skeptical of what you read (even of this piece), or of what you hear. Remember. No man is perfect. No man knows everything…

* * *

Eduardo A. Padlan is a corresponding member of the NAST and an adjunct professor in the UP Marine Science Institute. He can be reached at [email protected].