Science isn't a matter of opinion

The current state of scientific discussion within society is beginning to resemble Issac Asimov's famous quote that ignorance is "… nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "

This emerging paradigm is likely caused by a combination of factors. The first is inadequate science education, the second an intersection of hyper-partisanship and cognitive bias, in which people wield scientific data only when it suits their argument. In this way, the input of researchers is not only commonly dismissed in policy discussions, but often denigrated as "partisan screed of the biased liberal elite" or "tool of systemic oppression" when it runs contrary to the speaker's preconceived notions.

These statements could not be further from the truth. More to the point, the body of knowledge built by the scientific community is so interwoven and complex that one could not possibly cherry-pick the things that support their conclusions without committing to a massive number of logical paradoxes.

To illustrate my point, the body of knowledge upon which the assertions that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for warming our atmosphere is based on the law that matter (specifically carbon dioxide and other gasses) absorbs and re-emits light as described in an equation derived by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

[A march for science steps into the unknown]

If the case were made that warming of Earth's atmosphere is independent of the increasing levels of greenhouse gases, it would mean that his equation was wrong. But that equation also governs our understanding of chemistry, as we use the amount and wavelength of light that a chemical absorbs to determine its structure, which we cross-reference for accuracy by subjecting the chemical to intense magnetic fields in various instruments and observing its behavior. If Arrhenius was wrong, then these other systems would also be wrong. This implies that our understanding of magnetism and electromagnetism is flawed.

So in the end, if Svante Arrhenius' equation indicating the atmosphere is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions was wrong, then chemistry, medicines, electricity and nearly every device invented since the telegraph would simply not work. This includes the mass spectrometer I use to analyze carbon isotope ratios in plant and insect tissues, as well as the attractant pheromones I use to collect bark beetles.

And yet they work.

Science is simply a universal tool with which people can better understand natural phenomena. When an occurrence is observed, the observer develops an informed estimate as to the mechanism behind it, and devises a method to repeatedly test this educated guess using a series of experimental and control groups that provide a "Yes or No" answer through statistical analysis. The observer then subjects their work to rigorous peer review by experts within the field, and others repeat the experiment to verify the authenticity of the results and remove any contamination of bias. If some new research runs against the current assumptions of the scientific community, it will be rigorously tested, and following several different studies yielding similar results, the community will accept this new explanation. This can take a decade or more. Sometimes the discussion will likely not be resolved for several more decades.

Scientists are skeptical and pugnacious by training. We think critically, and never accept something without supporting evidence. We tear each other to ribbons in peer review, and write scathing op-eds in scientific journals if we disagree with a fellow researcher's conclusion, using citations to support our contrarian claims. We constantly push to increase diversity within our ranks because we know that people with varied backgrounds will approach a question from different directions, increasing our chances of producing results which can improve the lives of billions. None of us set out to be the next Rosalind Franklin or Norman Borlaug, but what we do in our labs and field stations has the same end goal to improve the lives of others by increasing the body of human knowledge.

Humanity faces an array of challenges in the near future. We now understand the second- and third-order effects of our current energy model, and race to address these issues while there is still time to affect a livable solution. The ever-present wolf-at-the-door of antibiotic resistance is moments away from sending medicine back into the dark ages, and cancer, the emperor of all maladies, continues to take its toll.

The informed policies that address these threats cannot be developed without basic scientific research. This is why I along with other scientists, medical practitioners, science educators and enthusiasts have formed the Anchorage March for Science as a nonpartisan organization to advocate for basic research, inform our neighbors of the important work we perform, and educate the public. To these ends we will be marching on April 22 from the Delaney Park Strip to the Anchorage Museum, where local scientists and research organizations will give presentations, conduct interactive exhibits, and talk with the public.

As scientists, we cannot advocate for any policy decision, but with our continued work, we can help the public make an informed choice.

For more information about the Anchorage March for Science, go to: https://sciencemarchanc.wixsite.com/sciencemarchanc. You can visit our Facebook page at www.facebook.com/MFSANCHORAGE.

Bryan Box is a forest ecologist and veteran of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. He uses stable isotope biogeochemistry to better understand the relationship between spruce beetles and climate change-induced drought stress on Kenai Peninsula forests.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.