Issues of scientific complexity occupy a lot of space in public affairs – be it the extraction of shale gas, effectiveness of alternative medicine or the alleged dangers from cell phone tower radiation. Strong positions on many of these issues is often tied to a political ideology rather than a deference to scientific reasoning and evidence.
So what is the easiest way to figure out if someone defers to scientific reason above and beyond ideologies?
I say that you can do it by understanding their positions on three cardinal topics of today: anthropogenic climate change, safety of nuclear power generation, and the safety of genetically modified foods.Broadly, people leaning towards the left of the political spectrum agree only with the first, and those leaning right agree only with the last two – be it with evidence or not. Ascertaining people’s views on all three is a good barometer of their deference to scientific evidence.
It is important, however, to note the core arguments that define these issues:
The core argument in climate change is that the earth’s surface warmed significantly in the 20th century due to human-linked emissions of greenhouse gases.
The argument with nuclear safety is that health risks from nuclear power generation, both chronic and acute, have been grossly exaggerated and that due to an obsession with nuclear safety for the past 6 decades, nuclear power is now safer than most other sources of energy.
The argument with genetically modified crops is that they are just as safe as other crops, both for growing and for consumption. Additionally, crop modification through targeted molecular biology techniques is in fact less genetically invasive than conventional hybridisation techniques.
Together, anyone’s views on all three topics – nuclear safety, GMOs and climate change – can be very illuminating. The discussion is moot, however, if somebody starts questioning evolution.