Selective Science

The Harper Conservatives only pay attention to scientific evidence when it suits their purposes.

One of the most striking developments of the last decade is the phenomenon best described as a war against science. The internet has given a platform to anyone with an opinion, regardless of merit: this is not a medium that moves knowledge forward on the basis of careful peer review of its content. To be blunt, any wackjob with a computer can spew out his or her pet theories on, for example, the need to lock up all illicit drug offenders, why the polar ice caps are not actually receding, and why vaccination is a government plot, a conspiratorial spin of the roulette wheel, with your health in the balance.

Take, for example, the Harper Conservatives. They actually reject the best available evidence in relation to crime; one has only to look at testimony before the House and Senate related to proposals of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment and the elimination of the faint hope clause. They are also pretty lukewarm when it comes to the science of climate change, historically more likely to side with the Bush Republicans than any other constituency. Their position is that the environment must not interfere with productive enterprise and the building of the gross domestic product – furthermore, there’s always a potential technological solution should the worst-case scenario arrive on our doorstep.

On vaccination, however, they are paying attention to the best available science, echoing the claims of reputable epidemiologists – vaccination for H1N1 carries only a minute future risk, while infection carries the reality of a nasty and even potentially fatal illness, particularly for those in high-risk groups.

So, what’s the diagnosis? For crime, getting tough is applauded by the majority. More than that, our government likes the idea of punishment; they quite pointedly deleted the word “progressive” from the description of their party. They don’t really care if imprisoning thousands of Canadians has any benefits; in their view, it’s still the right thing to do. On the environment, their beliefs may ultimately flow from religious conviction – the earth is man’s dominion, and human beings will triumph, presumably because the “man upstairs” will take care of us. As Stockwell Day, our current Minister of international trade and commerce has said, “As a Christian, I acknowledge the lordship of Jesus Christ over the whole universe ... I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God and every word in it, cover to cover, is true.”

The war against the science of vaccination comes from a different constituency – a ragtag mix of those who are suspicious of any action of government, true survivalists, and the new-agers, spiritually driven and emotionally “empowered.”

It’s a curious combination of the left and the right: the hellfire of the pulpit and the nihilism of post-modern thought have combined to demonstrate that, at the extremes of the political spectrum, left and right converge. Here we can find the roots of our opposition to science. The right tell us that God, not science, is in control of our destiny – he’s all for tough love with those who disobey, and he can help us get through the trickiest of problems. The extreme left tell us that you can create your own reality – science is an illusion. I prefer to cast my vote with, among others, Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Banting and Best, and Salk. Our lives are now much less likely to be nasty, brutish, and short – at least in the developed world. This has everything do with science and nothing to do with either God or emotional empowerment.