Disciplined change

Natural History, Oct, 2005 by Peter Brown

What kind of world do we live in? Like everyone else, I learned about the universe from my parents and teachers, and I got used to it. A hundred elements, give or take. Nine planets. Three kinds of elementary particles. Two kingdoms of life. One big bang.

But perspectives change. No one knew about Mendelevium (number 101) when I was born. Kuiper Belt object 2003 UB313 wasn't on anybody's radar screen. Neither were the quarks that make up neutrons and protons, the three "superkingdoms" of life, or cosmic inflation within a multiverse.

Error, obscurity, conceptual fuzziness, and sheer ignorance are part of science, just as they are in any other human activity. The method of science--and science is a method, not a set of conclusions--is to clear away those faults. Geologists once thought that collapsing volcanoes were rare in Earth's history; now they know otherwise (see "Blown Away" by Lee Siebert, page 50). Toxicologists could once do little more than catalogue obscure animal toxins; now molecular and systematic biologists are showing that some toxins can become lifesaving medicines (see "Toxic Treasure," by Robert George Sprackland, page 40). Planetary astronomers long classified Pluto as a major planet; now a raft of newfound Pluto-like objects has forced people to think harder about the very concept of a planet (see "Number Ten?" by Charles Liu, page 64). Scientific ignorance about the number of species on Earth is so deep that the range of informed estimates still spans almost two orders of magnitude (see "Taking Inventory," by Piotr Naskrecki, page 46).

With all that change and potential for revision, you'd think that diversity of viewpoint would be a core value of science--that "teach the controversy," as proponents of so-called intelligent design put it, would be an unassailable principle of science education. Haven't we learned by now that every opinion counts, that every voice deserves respect?

What a lot of people may not realize, though, is that science doesn't work that way. Not for nothing are the branches of science called disciplines. In science, opinion polls don't matter. Not everyone's voice is equal. Yes, science is, or should be, open to anyone--anyone with the talent and tenacity to pursue it. And if you do earn your scientific "union card," you are still not immune from criticism--far from it. In fact, the criticism you attract from other scientists, grounded in evidence and the canons of valid argument, is a good measure of how seriously your scientific views are taken.

But scientific debate is not for the uninformed. Scientific controversy is for scientists, to be hashed out in conferences and peer-reviewed journals, not in the elementary science classroom or the high school science textbook.

The human and environmental catastrophe caused by Hurricane Katrina is compounded by the teethgrinding sense that so much of the suffering and devastation was preventable. Natural History was only one of many voices calling attention to the precarious plight of prehurricane New Orleans. In his "Taming the River to Let In the Sea" (February 2005), Shea Penland diagnosed the geologic, climatologic, and historical forces that ultimately led to the disaster, and that must still be addressed as the city rebuilds. Penland's article is online at www.naturalhistorymag.com.