This discussion has a deficiency that I often find in writing that laments the general public's misuse and distrust of science. Scientific findings are presented as absolute, and scientific consensus is presented as clear. This is simply not the case. I was taken aback by Specter's dismissive attitude toward homeopathic medicine. As a scientist (admittedly not in the life sciences), I have a hard time outright dismissing any idea as stupid without seeing a rigorous analysis of a large data set that contradicts it...and I still wouldn't reject it as stupid to have posed the question. Perhaps there are better ways to spend funding dollars, but if the notion has been around in some cultures for millenia and Americans are choosing to follow it, maybe there's something worth understanding (or refuting). Modern medicine is based on a very specific, and somewhat narrow, approach to human health. It has made great strides, but we are nowhere near close to having a complete model for the complexity of human well-being.

At any rate, I digress. My main point is that the root of "science" is not a person's willingness to accept any one study or finding over their untested belief system. "Science" is about skepticism and having a rigorous, well-defined, and rational system for examining conjectures. So if someone says, "Vaccines make you autistic", then it's about asking questions such as, "by what mechanism?", and "what's your evidence of the correlation?" and looking for answers. I'm willing to bet that many people who dismiss vaccine activists as 'kooks' also believe in vaccines' safety based on faith in mainstream medicine...not upon an attempt to understand the existing research on the matter. Of course we all have limited time so it's not possible to ask and understand every issue, and it's not necessary. There are only a handful of issues that impact our lives and that we care about. And the onus is on all of us to ask questions about the validity of scientific claims. Yes, we will at some point have to trust the expertise of others (I'm an astrophysicist so at some point I do have to just believe a bacteriologist did her experiment correctly and look at her analysis)...but it also doesn't have to just be magic.

The problem isn't that Americans are "anti-science" or "inconsistent". The problem is that we are taught from a young age that science is a collection of facts (e.g. dogs are mammals, snakes are cold-blooded)...when in reality there are very few facts in science. Everything is up for reasoned debate...and while it is possible to prove something false, it's nearly impossible to show that something is true (whatever that means anyway).

You wrote:

"I was taken aback by Specter's dismissive attitude toward homeopathic medicine. As a scientist (admittedly not in the life sciences), I have a hard time outright dismissing any idea as stupid without seeing a rigorous analysis of a large data set that contradicts it..."

Well said!

In fact, there is some pretty good evidence for some homeopathic claims. See the controversy between Jacques Benveniste and Nature magazine. Benveniste may have been wrong but he was a totally honest person and an excellent scientist. To dismiss his work without knowing about in detail is unscientific.

Just to throw this thought out there:

How much difference is there between mainstream medicine and homeopathic medicine in practice? You go to an MD and he'll write you a prescription. You go to a homeopathic pratitioner and he'll give you some herbal remedy. Both are working with the assumption that whatever material you put into your body will make you better. The main difference is that the physician, presumably, is giving you something that has been subjected to rigorous experiments to verify their safety and efficacy. While the homeopath can only cite his own anecdotal experience in saying that has made his patients with similar feel better in the past.

But that isn't proof that the homeopathic remedy doesn't work, only that it hasn't been subjected the same standard of testing that mainstream medicine has. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

The same thing goes with vaccines and autism. We have tons of scientific studies to support the efficacy of vaccinations in controlling infections, but only a handful of anecdotal claims that autism is caused by them. Maybe these claims has some validity, maybe they don't. But we should make public policy based on what is actually provable scientifically rather than which side has the more charismatic spokesperson.

Maybe some people do feel more comfortable with the abilities of Firemarshal Bill and the former host of Singled Out to make emotional appeals. I'll trust the scientific data if and when it comes out over their emotional arguments. In the meantime, maybe medical schools should consider offering acting lessons to their students. it might help them make their case with the media better.

" I was taken aback by Specter's dismissive attitude toward homeopathic medicine. As a scientist (admittedly not in the life sciences), I have a hard time outright dismissing any idea as stupid without seeing a rigorous analysis of a large data set that contradicts it...and I still wouldn't reject it as stupid to have posed the question. Perhaps there are better ways to spend funding dollars, but if the notion has been around in some cultures for millenia and Americans are choosing to follow it, maybe there's something worth understanding (or refuting). Modern medicine is based on a very specific, and somewhat narrow, approach to human health."

I couldn't agree more with you! As regards medicine, eminent scientists are looking for answers in natural medicine. It seems to me it has incredible potential (it's not only my personal opinion, but first and foremost that of some of the most beautiful minds in this field). I have some personal experience in this respect, and the results appear astounding, absolutely astounding.

I think one of the main problems is the status quo bias and general reluctance to go beyond certain tight frameworks. Call me a sceptic, but I think that the system is constructed in such a way that it encourages making simple extensions to the well-established literature, and rewards such efforts. By contrast, it does not sufficiently recognize truly innovative approaches, and R&D in general-that is, also R&D that failed. We have some pre-conceptions about "failures", we treat them as personal and social defeats. It's ridiculous since it contradicts the quintessence of science: RESEARCH. Scientists are not frying machines, in which you throw some potatoes and get in 5 minutes crispy french fries. Thereotically, everyone is more or less aware of it, however, nothing substantially changes. That's the sick system!