Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The allure of the maverick

2012; Elsevier BV; Volume: 22; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.004

1879-0445

Cyrus Martin,

Climate Change Communication and Perception

I was surprised, to put it lightly, to read in a recent letter (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop) to the Wall Street Journal that, “There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world's economy.” The letter was signed by 16 scientists from several prestigious institutions, including Princeton and MIT, and it makes the case that there has been no global warming in the last decade, that CO2 is in fact beneficial to crops, and that we should do nothing to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. How is the average Joe on the street supposed to square this with the opposite view, which happens to be held by the world's national academies and the International Panel for Climate Change, that global warming is real and destructive, that mankind is responsible, and that steps should be taken immediately to address it? In his/her mind, is there not a controversy? Is the matter not unsettled? After all, Princeton and MIT are not exactly intellectual backwaters. This particular case speaks to the important role of the general media in presenting an accurate picture of important issues and how the public distinguishes experts, the subject of an editorial (Curr. Biol. 15, R433) in Current Biology written several years ago and revisited here. In the case of the Wall Street Journal piece, the publishing of a letter from a small group of fringe scientists has given credibility to a view rejected by mainstream climate scientists, and cases such as these have important implications for public perceptions and policy decisions. So how do these things happen? More specifically, how are the seeds of doubt sown on issues that are already settled by our scientific bodies? It's first necessary to look to the conditions that promote ill-supported theories. In the case of the widely popularized but unsubstantiated idea that vaccines cause autism, for example, the conditions probably included the need for autistic parents to find a palpable cause for the seemingly sudden onset of their child's condition. Here, a single study in the Lancet, subsequently retracted, and the opinions of Hollywood celebrities, were sufficient to convince desperate parents that the MMR vaccine caused their child's autism. This had the grave consequence of reducing vaccination rates, almost certainly resulting in unnecessary illness and possibly deaths. In the case of the evolution ‘debate’ in the US, there is an inherent conflict between the central tenets of Darwinian evolution and the religious beliefs of many (e.g., the shared ancestry between man and apes, the incongruent time frames, the necessity for divine intervention itself), providing a compelling reason to adopt intelligent design theories patently rejected by almost all scientists. Turning to the issue at hand — the idea that global change is not real and/or not a serious issue — a likely contributing factor is the economic burden in the short term that mitigation of climate change makes necessary. Politicians seeking office, supported by interested lobbyists, can use the climate ‘debate’ to cast doubt on the reality of global warming and make the attractive case that in fact no one has to tighten their belt. As the recent letter in the Wall Street Journal makes clear, another important ingredient allowing discredited theories to gain a foothold is a prestigious public forum. Here is where the judgement of the editor and the desires of the readership come into play. Aside from the reasons articulated above, everyone likes a good controversy. The idea of scientists from different camps squaring up, ready to do intellectual battle, is appealing and it's fun to be a spectator. Consequently, there is a strong motivation for editors to publish such stories, especially if the scenario involves a lone maverick toiling against the oppressive weight of the scientific establishment — the man. The underdog has huge appeal, and if you equip them with Ivy League credentials, especially so. When mainstream scientists protest the promotion of these underdogs, the argument always seems to be that there is nothing wrong with a good debate, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is against free speech. To be sure, there have been theories that bucked the mainstream view and yet eventually turned out to be true. Take the contributions of Lynn Margulis (Curr. Biol. 22, R4–R6), who had to battle conventional wisdom for years before her endosymbiotic theory was vindicated, though some of her other ideas were not. No one is arguing that unconventional views cannot be right, but the cliché “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” certainly applies here. Thus far, creationists and climate denialists have failed to bring any compelling evidence to the table. But the crucial point is that newspaper editors need to recognize this and present a balanced view that accurately reflects the views of the scientific community as a whole, especially on important issues like climate change. If these are the causes, what is the potential damage inflicted by ill-supported, crackpot theories? The recent Republican primaries make the problem evident. Almost all of the frontrunners either don't believe in global warming or, if they do, don't think humans are the main problem. One of the contenders, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was quoted at a recent town hall meeting as saying that global warming “hasn't been totally proven”. And Mitt Romney, the most likely nominee for president recently stated, “My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” The only notable exception was John Huntsman, former Ambassador to China, who feels that we should look to scientists to settle such issues. Unfortunately for Huntsman, views such as these are viewed as too moderate, and he's bowed out of the race. This is unsettling to say the least. It says that a significant number of government officials, and possibly the future president of the United States, is rejecting the recommendations of the world's most prestigious scientific bodies in favor of the views of the extreme minority. In an election year, the reasons are obvious. But it effectively turns the clock back on civilization to the Middle Ages, this at a time when we need to look to our scientists to help solve our many pressing problems, including the very real warming of our planet.