Hawthorn Hill Journal by Richard deRosa
With Science Top of Mind…
Science was never my strong suit. Neither was math. When it comes to the more compelling questions about life, neither science nor numbers come close to answering the deeply existential questions I ask myself. Science has been on my mind quite a bit lately, primarily because of the dangerous anti-science mentality of the present administration. Be it measles, the proven carcinogenic effects of certain pesticides, indisputable effects of climate change, or just having adequate numbers of people to trace the origins of contaminated foods, this crowd just doesn’t give a damn. Well, it does care deeply about wealth, but not very much about the health of either the planet or we the people. Science still does not answer my queries about self and the essential nature of humanity in the way that philosophy, literature and poetry do. But it is indispensable to our lives and I am grateful to those who have dedicated their lives to it. As Adam Smith made so very clear in “The Wealth of Nations,” we help each other out by trading competencies. I do what I do well and you do what you do well and in that way we help each other out. I am not making an argument here for free market capitalism, although I do believe that with some moral and economic modifications from time to time it can be a useful and mutually beneficial system. Unfortunately, all too often the darker angels flit in and screw things up. And we still need to figure out effective ways of clipping those angels’ wings.
I mentioned measles earlier. We are now in the midst of the largest national outbreak in quite some time. Several deaths have already been reported. An unvaccinated individual in Otsego County is reported to have contracted measles. This aversion to measles vaccines and vaccines in general is cause for alarm. Some shy from vaccinations for religious reasons. So be it. Others are jolted into worry and fear because of unproven links to autism. I have expressed the view that people do not live their lives scientifically. By that I mean that many among us do not accept scientific data as sufficient in and of itself when making health-related decisions. The work of science happens at a far remove from everyday life. It seems distant and unfathomable to many. We tend to mistrust what we do not understand. And, to be fair, science is responsible for creating some of the more troubling innovations in human history. I recall all too vividly those air raid drills that required us to dive down underneath our desks to protect ourselves against nuclear fallout. Now we worry about the dehumanization of our lives due to robots and AI. And then there are those drones that have become lethal killing machines. Nonetheless, among the many extraordinary achievements of science, especially within the realm of healthcare and disease prevention, vaccinations top the list. Sifting out our more troubling tendencies has never been our strong suit.
In “The Forest Unseen: A Year’s Watch in Nature,” David George Haskell writes, “I have glimpsed how rich science is but simultaneously how limited in scope and in spirit. It is unfortunate that the practice of listening generally has no place in the formal training of scientists. In this absence, science needlessly fails. We are poorer for this and possibly more hurtful.”
He has watched one patch of ground for a year and realized that what he sees and experiences in that year is an evolving story, and that seeing and experiencing things only through the lens of science is just one part of a larger story: nature. I spend a lot of time wandering around checking out plants of all kinds and while I do check a guide to validate their identity, I pay little attention to their Latin monikers. I am glad that Linnaeus created the system of classification that he did. Scientific classification serves a distinct scientific purpose. It is a useful tool. But like any tool, it has its limitations. Its drawback is that it cannot convey the essence of the thing it classifies. In fact, it can have a deadening effect. Latin terms ascribing species and genus do have a place in the lab. Where they fall short is doing justice to the wonder and beauty of the object being experienced—and felt.
I trust reputable scientific research of the type that has developed so many undeniably effective vaccines. Frankly, it is an act of faith to allow someone to jab you with a needle that injects something into your system that you really know very little about. Heretofore, we have been quite willing to believe that what we are allowing someone do to us is both safe and effective. We trusted the science behind it because we trusted the process that guaranteed its efficacy and safety. We had faith in the system. That faith has been eroded. No wonder some are skeptical. Science operates at such a far remove from everyday life. When people start questioning the integrity of a system whose sole job is to reassure us that all is well, the center starts to fray. Especially when crackpots are at the helm.
Science prides itself on its objectivity. That is its function. Its moral dimensions are somewhat feebly paid attention to. Nonetheless, we need science, just as we need art and music and literature and poetry. There is a compelling need for science to state its case more clearly and to find ways of reassuring us that it wishes us well despite its remoteness from our daily lives. It is important to remember, however, that science is just one of many methods we use to make sense of our lives and ourselves.
Dick deRosa’s Hawthorn Hill essays have appeared in “The Freeman’s Journal” since 1998. A collection, “Hawthorn Hill Journal: Selected Essays,” was published in 2012. He is a retired English teacher.
