Nexus - 0904 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

THE SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT IN SCIENCE SUPPRESSION THE SCIENCE DISSENT The science establishment tends to react to conflicting and inconvenient theories by denigrating, harassing, rejecting, or ignoring the scientists who propose them. n the "Archaeological Cover-ups" article last issue, we examined some of the ways in which science is suppressing anomalies, "heretical" researchers and dissent. Here we continue the investigations while opening up some new areas. Brian Martin of the University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia, has done extensive research into the way science as an institution actually operates, separating the facts of how it works from the myths of how it is supposed to work. If there are strong interests behind a particular position or theory, then the task of challengers is difficult. This difficulty is aggravated if challengers are outsiders who don't "play the game". If you are a talented scientist with a good track record, work- ing at an elite institution, and write a conventional-looking paper—but with challeng- ing ideas—there may be difficulties enough. For anyone else, it is much tougher. (Habitat Australia, no. 7, 1992) We can picture the way science works as a complicated filtering process. The walls and halls of academia and science go hand in hand. No matter how brilliant you are, if you lack a degree in science you are not going to get to the next filter. It helps to have the right degree from the right (meaning prestigious) institution. If you have these qualifica- tions, you will find that writing papers is part of the territory of being a successful scholar or researcher. You will know how to "play the game" at this point. The next filter is the peer review process. Your papers will be examined by a jury of peers and probably be published if they conform to the accepted theories, and probably wind up rejected if not. However, just because you have all the right stuff is no guarantee that any novel, challenging, boat-rocking theory hurled at the ivory towers of the estab- lishment, regardless of how brilliant, is going to be accepted—as we shall soon see. HERETICS AND TABOO RESEARCH In 1994, the BBC ran a series called Heretics, which documented how the scientific community has responded to ideas considered unacceptable. The "unacceptable" ideas ranged from the efficacy of high doses of vitamin C to the existence of antigravity and psychokinesis (PK). Some of the scientists who proffered these "wild" ideas had solid credentials—scientists like Linus Pauling and Robert Jahn. In each case, a familiar pattern unfolded. The claims were dismissed out of hand and branded as "nonsense" or "impossible", without any serious attempt being made to look at the evidence or to listen to their proponents’ arguments. The series went much deeper by exposing the high degree of insularity and the strong sense of self-superiority that exists within the scientific community. The case of Robert Jahn, an expert in rocket engineering, was presented. At the time, Jahn was Dean of the Faculty of Engineering at Princeton University. In addition to carrying out his normal responsibilities and areas of research, he became interested in PK after a student asked if he could study the possible effects of the mind on electronic circuits. Jahn thought the experiment harmless and did not anticipate any positive results. However, the test did produce positive findings. Jahn set up another experiment to see if those results could be duplicated—and, to his surprise, they were. The university forbade him to talk about these experiments. However, Jahn went on with this line of investigation—as we'd expect of a real scientist driven by curiosity. He eventually published some of his findings, which upset a number of colleagues. Jahn was criticised in an article written by Nobel Laureate Philip Anderson that JUNE - JULY 2002 NEXUS ¢ 43 by Will Hart © 2002 Email: Wrtsearch1 @aol.com www.nexusmagazine.com