30 July 2004

The Feynman doctrine and exaggerated science

Forrest M. Mims III

Environmental scientists and their findings have long been the subject of controversy.

Global warming is a particularly touchy topic. The controversy is less over whether or not warming is occurring than over the role of human activity in climate change.

Members of the Society for Amateur Scientists who agree on most everything may hold strongly divergent views on this highly polarizing topic.

A recent motion picture about catastrophic consequences of global warming has reignited the controversy. While acknowledging that the movie exaggerates some of the scary scenarios it presents, some environmentalists believe the movie is an important wake up call.

Critics point out major flaws in the movie's science. They also note that the movie is based on a book by two controversial authors who believe in visitations from outer space and a wide variety of paranormal phenomena.

Others ignore the science debate and enjoy the movie for its special effects. My 17-year old daughter Sarah, a scientist in her own right, reports, "The special effects are pretty cool, even if the science is ridiculous."

So who is right?

Is Earth really warming? Why are glaciers melting in many regions when some regions are cooling? What are the prime movers of climate change? Is human influence the dominant factor?

Properly answering questions like these requires a good deal more space than this editorial allows. That's why it's so important for all sides of environmental issues to agree on just one ground rule: Scientists must not knowingly deceive nonscientists.

This principle has been stated by many scientists. It's also alluded to in various statements of scientific ethics. Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman gave his view during his 1974 commencement address at Caltech:

"I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist."

Not all scientists accept the Feynman doctrine. I know three scientists who strongly believe that various environmental problems are so serious that they have a moral obligation to exaggerate their consequences to make their point. All three have told me it is acceptable to make false statements to the media and the general public in support of what they perceive to be a greater good.

On the other hand, I also know elected officials and community leaders on various sides of environmental issues who have naive and even confused views about basic environmental matters. They seem to have learned what little they know from radio talk shows, the writings of nonscientists or biased publications from environmental, industrial or political groups.

The latter group can't be held responsible for advocating bad science under the Feynman doctrine, because they are not scientists. But, based on discussions with both sides of this issue, the latter group might be more receptive to good science if more scientists followed the Feynman doctrine.

While most scientists I know probably agree with the Feynman doctrine, they might also agree that challenging their colleagues who don't is distracting. It might also open them to criticism.

Perhaps citizen scientists can play a constructive role in all this by applying the Feynman doctrine to environmental controversies through letters to editors and in public statements. Surely a well informed public will be far better equipped to understand environmental matters than a public that bases its opinions solely on exaggerated scientific claims or the views of scientifically illiterate talk show hosts.