Three science mistakes that non-scientists make

post by Jen Coleman

I’m a sucker for science. I am inclined to believe it. So when politics and science get whipped into a froth and poured over a debate about protecting health and the environment, I need a refresher on what science can and cannot do.

Thanks, UC Berkley’s “Understanding Science” site, for the refresher!

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

Here are three things about science I learn and re-learn all the time:

Science mistake #1: Expecting to find the truth

When the news talks about “scientific proof,” it sure sounds like the truth is established. But a scientific idea is never once-and-for-all proven. There’s never certainty. Science works by collecting evidence, and then accepting or rejecting an idea until more evidence comes along.

When regulators in the U.S. say that a substance is “safe” for health, it sure sounds like they have proven it once and for all. But the system is rigged. In some cases, a substance is considered “safe” even when there are big gaps in our understanding of how it may impact human health. It takes far more scientific evidence before regulators will conclude that a substance is “unsafe”—often after people have been harmed.

Science mistake #2: Rejecting science because it is uncertain

Just because science can’t prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt, it doesn’t mean science is untrustworthy. Science at its best embraces uncertainty as a drive for exploration. Scientists test an idea in more and more ways, and come back with more and different kinds of evidence, making that idea more reliable and less likely to change.

So: who decides how much evidence is enough? Dr. Bruce Lanphear raises that question in his article on “The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain.” There’s a global system for deciding when there’s enough evidence to call something a carcinogen, but no such system for neurotoxic substances. Lead, mercury and PCBs are all “well established” as raising the risk of cognitive harm; but pesticides, air pollution and PBDE flame retardants are not considered “definitive” despite growing scientific evidence to strengthen such a conclusion.

Science mistake #3: Thinking science is a done deal

It happens all the time that scientists revise their accepted ideas—even those written down in textbooks. It’s not a mistake or an underhanded trick. It’s a healthy part of the process. We make decisions all the time based on the available scientific evidence, and it makes sense to do so. But if we’re smart, we’ll be able to respond when new scientific evidence requires us to make revisions.

For example, before 1950, we thought toxics could not pass through the placenta; then, new evidence showed that babies are exposed to toxics before birth. The heavy metal lead is also an interesting case: we once though there was a “threshold” so that, under a certain dose, lead had no effect on children’s brains. Now we have enough evidence to see that there is no safe level of exposure to lead.

The upshot:

Science is an important tool for decision-making. But we have to invest in science if we want it to work; “lack of evidence” is not a scientific way to make decisions.

That’s why OEC supports the Toxic Free Kids Act (SB 478): it would gather evidence we don’t have on how, when and in what quantities our kids are exposed to chemicals of concern in children’s products.

We also have to decide how much evidence we need in order to act; solid and irrefutable proof is not what science is about.

That’s why the Toxic Free Kids Act is focused on disclosing and replacing “chemicals of concern to children’s health.” There is enough evidence that these chemicals are in our environments and in bodies, and evidence that these chemicals can raise the risk of adverse health effects.

And then once we act, we must be prepared to both search for new evidence and, if warranted, make changes in our decisions based on that evidence.

That’s why the Toxic Free Kids Act asks the Oregon Health Authority to start paying attention to the new evidence showing that chemical exposures can raise the risk of some of our most prevalent and costly chronic diseases.

So, whether you’re a scientist, an English major or a business whiz, it’s good to keep perspective on the science we count on to keep our world going around. You can do something in the name of good science today: Tell your legislator to support the Toxic Free Kids Act.

Related Posts
Filter by
Post Page
Toxics-Free Environments Air Quality OEC News/Updates/Events Policy Living Green Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Climate Protection Water News Water Conservation Water Stories Stormwater Featured
Sort by

OEC Celebrates Scientists: Joel Nigg, Neuroscientist

“A good decision is very difficult if you are not asking the right question, if you are not looking at reality as accurately as you possibly can. Science is the best source we have for deciding what course of action is most likely to be correct.”
April 19, 2017, 11:28 pm
admin

9

OEC Celebrates Scientists: Kim Anderson, Environmental Forensics

“Wondering about our world can be the catalyst for innovative learning, and for creative minds to create the solutions for our times.” —Kim Anderson, PhD., Chemistry Director, Food Safety and Environmental Stewardship, College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State Unive
April 17, 2017, 11:57 pm
admin

9

OEC Celebrates Scientists: Linda George

“Politicians and citizens often face hard choices when it comes to complex problems. The scientific process helps decision-makers by providing information that is based on the best available science, reproducible and as objective as possible.” —Linda A. George, PhD., Environmental Sciences & Resources/Chemistry Professor
April 17, 2017, 11:45 pm
admin

9

OEC Celebrates Scientists: Allison Aldous, Freshwater Scientist

“People underestimate how dependent we are on healthy rivers and watersheds. Wetlands help to store and clean water. Rivers connected to their floodplains buffer downstream communities from flooding. Healthy rivers provide recreation opportunities and fishing for sport and food. Oregonians are very connected to rivers across the state. Science can help clarify the relationship we have with water.”—Allison Aldous, PhD, Sen
April 17, 2017, 11:38 pm
admin

9

OEC Celebrates Scientists: Amy Patton

“Clean water is a naturally renewable resource. However, once contaminated, it becomes very hard to get back to a usable state. Our clean water is so valuable, and protecting it must be a priority.”—Amy Patton, Hydrogeologist Patton EnvironmentalAmy Patton is a hydrogeologist working in various parts of Oregon. She studies ground
April 17, 2017, 11:23 pm
admin

9

OEC Celebrates Scientists: Julie Haack, Green Chemistry

“Everything we buy and use has impacts on the environment. By using cutting-edge science, such as life-cycle analysis and green chemistry, we can identify where the biggest impacts are and discover and develop much safer alternatives.” – Julie Haack, PhD, Biology Green Chemistry Researcher &
April 17, 2017, 11:10 pm
admin

9

Celebrating Oregon Scientists

Across Oregon, thousands are expected to turn out and March for Science on Earth Day, Saturday, April 22. In anticipation and in celebration of the many women and men who help innovate solutions to protect Oregon’s air, water and climate, we are sharing snapshots of a few who help inform our work here at Oregon Environmental Council. It’s our way of putting a human face on science – and highlighting the important science research happening r
April 17, 2017, 11:08 pm
admin

9

Non-toxic tips to know before you buy furniture

Thanks, KGW! The local news is letting Portlanders know that they can now buy upholstered furniture made without toxic flame retardant chemicals. For decades, furniture-makers who use polyurethane foam padding have had little choice but to soak it in toxic flame retardant chemicals. Now, the law has changed—and it’s easier both to make and to identify furniture that is free of these chemicals linked to memory, learning, IQ, hormonal system and fertility problems. And thanks to a
November 11, 2015, 9:26 pm
jenc

0


No Replies to "Three science mistakes that non-scientists make"


    Got something to say?

    Some html is OK