Truth Should Be The Sole Objective

Years ago, “Doctor Science” entertained public radio listeners with whimsical explanations of life’s little mysteries. “I have a master’s degree in science,” the “doctor” would declare. “He knows more than you do,” a narrator would add.

Doctor Science was only kidding. But in real life, it’s important to figure out when science is entitled to reverent faith, and when it’s entitled mainly to a horselaugh.

This month, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court encouraged judges to boot “junk science” from the courtroom.

The court’s ruling arises from Robert Joiner’s lawsuit against General Electric and others. Joiner developed lung cancer in 1991. He had worked as an electrician in Georgia and claimed he’d been exposed to tiny quantities of the chemical PCB, from electrical transformers. His lawyers claimed PCBs caused Joiner’s cancer. A few scientists offered to support the claim, noting that some infant mice developed cancer (not the type Joiner got) after massive doses of PCBs were injected directly into their abdomens. One of the scientists admitted that no study has ever found PCBs to cause cancer in any species other than mice.

The Supreme Court upheld a trial judge who tossed out the claims of Joiner’s scientists. Joiner had smoked cigarettes for eight years, his parents both smoked and there is a history of lung cancer in his family.

The high court said judges have broad discretion to decide when expert testimony is admissible.

This decision should bring needed scrutiny upon the “expert” witnesses-for-hire who work hand-in-glove with trial lawyers.

But the ruling has relevance outside of courtrooms. Science, no question, brings progress and illumination. It also can be abused, when industries and political groups surround themselves with auras of scientific validation.

For example, newly unearthed documents show cigarette companies created stables of “scientists” to defend the safety of their product.

And, in many policy disputes, advocates on both sides back their claims with scientific research: global warming, school reform, salmon restoration, nuclear power …

Fact is, scientists often disagree and their conclusions change. The better scientists qualify their certitudes, noting that the essence of their work is a continuing process of inquiry, discovery and revision.

Those who manipulate science quote studies the way others quote Bible verses: Tremble, you ignoramus, for science is on my side.

The rest of us must learn enough about science to greet its assertions with informed, common-sense analysis - as did the Supreme Court in Joiner vs. General Electric.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster For the editorial board