In the previous essay on Comparative Science, we talked about empirical science, which came about in the west in the 16th and 17th centuries, and is exemplified by empiricism and the scientific method. We then discussed how modern science is characterized by technological advances of the 20th century. While modern science still adheres to the principals of empirical science, technological advances give it its own character. The breadth and depth of scientific knowledge have increased greatly, as new tools and techniques allowed us to reach further. At the same time, empiricism itself becomes more mediated, as the tools of measure we use become further and further removed from direct observation.
In this essay, I would like to trace another trend of mainstream western science that developed in the 20th century, that I will refer to as institutional science. I’d then like to provide a warning for when a scientific tradition may veer off its original course, and the knowledge it acquires is no longer grounded in truth.
Institutional Science
When discussing modern science, we observed that access to scientific research is getting more and more expensive. Where the money comes from that is funding this research becomes a more and more relevant question. Most of the money funding scientific research comes through government programs such as granting agencies, like the NIH. The people on the boards of these government programs have a lot of say as to what kinds of scientific experimentation get funded, as well as which scientists get to do this research. It would be nice to be able to assume that the people in charge of the money flow were looking out for the interests of the people, and dedicated to the cause of truth and knowledge. We won’t rule this out as a possibility, but to assume this is so would be quite naive.
Most of this money gets funneled to established labs in large academic research institutions. These research institutions hold sway over who gets tenure, and who gets hired and fired. The head of a lab that is in good favor with the funding sources can have hundreds of people working under them, and all these workers can be screened in different ways for their opinions and beliefs.
Practices such as peer review, that were established to ensure the quality of the scientific research that gets reported on, can also be used as a tool to suppress research that the reviewing peers find uncomfortable or inconvenient.
Reproducibility is less effective at filtering out biases as the costs of running the experiment increase, because the only people who can reproduce the experiment have passed through these same ideological filters.
Wide avenues of scientific research might never be explored due to lack of interest, or lack of alignment with the funding agenda. In the meantime, billions of dollars of research can be funded in specific areas, such as genetics. In a situation like this, an alternative explanation to genetics might never be developed due to lack of funds, while so much money is funneled into genetics that it is bound to produce some useful results.
It’s important to note that all of these kinds of problems can occur without bad intentions on the part of many or most of the people involved in the scientific process. A well-intentioned scientist or administrator might be playing a role within the system, while not even being aware of these potential problems. They may also have hidden biases that prevent them from seeing potential problems around them.
False Science
The problems of institutional science discussed above could occur within any system of science. There is always the risk that the people involved in scientific research have other agenda besides the advancement of accurate knowledge. And there is always the risk that multiple people involved in scientific research, with similar non-scientific agenda, will conspire to bend the results of science away from the truth, and in the favor of their agenda. And yet, it is clear that when the ability to perform modern scientific research depends on access to millions of dollars in funding, the risks of these kinds of problems are magnified.
We recognize that it is always impossible for a scientist to shed all their biases before entering the lab, or for them to always act in a purely selfless, altruistic manner. This is part of the reason why empirical science introduces so many factors to ensure accuracy, such as empiricism and reproducibility, discussed in the first part of this series. And yet, even these kinds of factors are not enough to ensure accuracy. We must admit to the possibility of a system of science becoming corrupted to the point where its results are no longer reliable. Any science that falls victim to such a fate, we can label as false science.
Of course, false science is a matter of degree. And a judgement in this regard is going to depend greatly on the knowledge, beliefs, and biases of the person making the judgement. While there is evidence that institutionalism in modern western science has pushed us further in the direction of false science, that judgement is ultimately yours to make. You should be as impartial as possible when considering it, but like a scientific theory itself, we each ultimately have to draw our own conclusions as to its accuracy.
Our commitment to truth is critical, and if we do reach the conclusion that a scientific tradition is a false science, we are morally obligated to deny it. We should do our part in persuading people to avoid the results and conclusions of any such false science. We should do whatever we can to correct the problem. And we should refuse to participate if there is no hope of correction. Taking a stand like this may well be difficult. We might be attacked. For people working in the scientific community, it might cost them their job to simply bring up concerns. I’m not pretending I know the best course of action for you to take. That’s between you and your God and your conscience. But as Jesus tells us in Matthew 5:10, “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”