Science Matters by David Suzuki

Corporate scandals, political scandals, journalists fabricating stories, researchers fudging data - does anyone ever tell the truth anymore?

It certainly seems to have suffered of late. From the Bush administration’s apparently mythical weapons of mass destruction to New York Times reporter Jayson Blair’s confessions of having invented sources, the truth has become a casualty of our fast-moving 24/7 culture.

Certainly, it’s still out there, but more and more often it seems that what we are accepting is a stripped-down racing version of the truth - a low-carb truth lite, if you will.

We just seem to be too busy to look for the thoughtful, challenging answers that are more accurate and more honest. Instead, we are obsessed with “the latest thing,” be it a technological gizmo, scientific breakthrough or fad.

We want the hottest clothes. We trust the latest diet, the latest news, the latest trend. The world is a confusing place, and we want quick answers - the simpler the better.

Scientists are not immune to this incessant pressure to make news and make waves. Recently, 10 of the original 13 authors of a 1998 report published in the journal The Lancet retracted the paper’s conclusion that there was a link between autism and the childhood combined MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. The original report made headlines and many parents opted not to vaccinate their children. Some health experts are concerned that reduced vaccination rates could lead to more outbreaks of these diseases.

In the March 6 retraction, the 10 authors state, “no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient.”

The UK’s medical oversight body is also considering an investigation into charges of conflict of interest against one of the authors, who at the time was being paid by the country’s legal aid board to investigate whether parents could sue over a possible connection between MMR and autism.

The MMR report isn’t the only recent case of questionable scientific behaviour. A recent report from the Committee on Publishing Ethics in the UK found 29 documented infractions over one year, ranging from trying to publish the same “original” paper in several different journals, to plagiarism, to attempted bribery.

One journal published a paper on the effects of passive smoking, but did not disclose that it had been paid for by the tobacco industry, or that the author had at one time been a lobbyist for the industry.

Of course, just because the tobacco industry or a biotechnology company, or an environmental organization funded a paper, does not make its conclusions invalid. But knowing the source of that funding is crucial to the reader’s ability to judge certain assumptions the researchers may have made. This kind of disclosure is essential for any honest interpretation of the conclusions to occur.

Most scientists are honest, as are most journalists, doctors and people in general. But when a few choose to step over the line, there seems to be no shortage of consumers willing to accept the latest news as gospel. In the 21st century, a new report or study literally comes out every minute - and with today’s media saturation, some news outlet, somewhere, will pick it up just as fast. Reporters are on the job 24 hours a day and there’s always a deadline approaching in some time zone.

Science, technology and culture have never been more intertwined, and our ability to communicate globally has never been so powerful. This calls for even more care and more diligence because wishful analyses and sloppy interpretations can quickly have profound repercussions. They can even start wars. Yet the pressure to succeed and “get ahead” has also never been greater. The disconnection between these two forces creates a dangerous breeding ground for dishonesty and sets the stage for situations where truth is not the only casualty.