Speaker to Ponder State of Science

Fifty years since the discovery of DNA, science has come a long way, but it finds itself pulled in opposite directions.

Where the middle ground lies between high schools dropping evolutionism and state governments funding stem cell research is a question one professor says is essential to both the future direction of science, and a step towards the truth about what science really is.

Susan Haack, a professor of philosophy and law at the University of Miami, will speak Saturday night at the Center for Inquiry on Sweet Home Road about her latest book, "Defending Science -- Within Reason."

Haack said although when many people think of science being under attack they think of science versus religion, the problem isn't that narrow.

"It's the first thing on a lot of people's minds, but it's not the first thing on mine. There's something much deeper going on," she said.

The heart of the matter, according to Haack, is that science needs to be protected from both the overly honorary point of view that says science can solve everything, and the blatantly cynic point of view that says science is an untrustworthy social fabrication.

"I'm actually trying to find a sensible middle ground," Haack said. "I plan mostly to talk about why science is valuable, and what to say in response to people who think that science is a kind of Western imposition."

Haack added she's not looking for the middle ground for the sake of being politically correct, "but because it's right."

Kevin Christopher, director of public relations for the Center for Inquiry, said he hopes professors like Haack help clarify certain notions about science for those don't fully understand it or aren't in the field.

"Science is not a worldview," Christopher said. "It is a method of inquiry."

Christopher echoed Haack's opinion that on one hand, many people revere science, but many others fear it because they find it esoteric and difficult to understand.

"There is an argument that science is not being communicated to the public as well as it should be," he said.

Even more troubling, said Haack, is when people come to conclusions about science based on what they see on the X-Files or CSI.

"I think television shows like CSI give people the impression that forensic scientists can do more and are more reliable then they really are," she said, adding that the mystique of TV can have an effect in real life situations like a courtroom.

"If a juror thinks 'Oh he's wearing a white coat, he's a doctor, he must be right,' then that's a problem," she said.

Problems in the courtroom are actually what got Haack writing the book in the first place. With a focus on the 1954 discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick, Haack said she wanted to take a close look at the role DNA was starting to play in courtroom in the early 1990s. What she found surprised her: a mass of literature bashing science as a method of inquiry and evidence.

Soon, the book became a look at the interaction between science and modern culture and game of tug-of-war between the two.

Haack agreed that oftentimes scientists find themselves hurtfully distant from the average people who should be benefiting from their research.

"You may discover a way of controlling AIDS, but then you might not know the way of getting it to the people who need it most," she said.

And mixed into that problem are the added issues of sexism within the sciences, government funding of the sciences, and religious fanaticism. The field has to take a good hard look at itself, Haack said, when people are using biological bombs to kill people in major cities.

For the most part, Haack added, the public is aware of the issues at hand, especially when their tax dollars disappear on uncompleted superconductors and billion-dollar Mars rovers that break.

"Ordinary people are very conscious of what's happening, especially when the thing erupts above the academic surface, for stem cells, for example, or with cloning," she said.

And although it might not seem like a big deal that every other day people are being told something contradictory about their health, the debate at hand has much larger implications.

"As soon as you have knowledge you have the power to change the world," she said. "And you may change it for better or you may change it for ill."

Haack's lecture is the second in a "Science in the Public" series at the Center for Inquiry. Last month, UB professor Christopher Whittle spoke about the portrayal of science, both good and bad, on television.

The event starts at 7 p.m. General admission is $6, and $3 for students with ID.