In my previous article, I gave some examples of public icons that were samples of what I call 'Scienstupidity'. Whilst these guys have made incorrect, inaccurate and just plain stupid comments, there is also another band of comments that I am looking at today. This what I have decided to call 'Scisimplifalse'. Those technically correct statements and comments about a scientific fact or development, but simplified to such a degree that it becomes misleading, Honestly, I think that these kind of comments and statements cause more damage- to both people and science as a whole.
First up, the delightful James Watson. This guy came up recently on some other blog posts I did discussing his awful comments on just about anything.
In 2007, Watson told a British newspaper that he was "gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as their "social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whereas all the testing says not really" He then doubles down on this by stating that whilst we might want all humans to have the same genetic-given intelligence, "people who have to deal with Black employees find this is not true". What Watson is suggesting here is that genetic testing is showing that African people do not have the same intelligence as 'ours'. This is apparently shown by Black employees. So what he is essentially suggesting is that genetics affects intelligence and Black people have apparently not inherited the genes that control intelligence. This is not a misquotation or him being taken out of context- the same 'theories' are suggested in his 2007 memoir "Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a life in Science". Lovely title. In addition, he wrote that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically". In other words, people evolved different genes and this resulted in different 'intellectual capacities'. He also suggested that genetics could be the reason for 'the imbalance in the representation of men and women in science' - implying that women are genetically less intelligent that men. In 2019, Watson confirmed that he still held these views.
Okay. Lets look at the science. Do genes control intelligence? Well, yes and no.
There is a key concept when it comes to genetics and that's the idea of nature vs nurture. There are some characteristics that can be controlled by your genetic code and your environment, whilst some traits are controlled only by genetics. Something as abstract as 'intelligence' with multiple different meanings has NEVER been proven to be caused by only one or the other.
Genes can be LINKED to intelligence- some versions of genes (alleles) have been studied and may- I repeat MAY, be linked to an increased IQ. Inheritance of intelligence is estimated to be about 50%- this basically means that genetics only explains half of the variation in intelligence between parents and their child. For example, if a child was judged not to be as smart as their parents, and 100 explanations were suggested for why this was the case, only 50% would be genetic- based.
In one 2017 study by lead author Suzanne Sniekers (et al) and published in the journal Nature Genetics, 52 alleles were implicated in intelligence, with these genes being mostly expressed in brain tissue. But this only explained up to 4.8% of the variation of intelligence seen -in other words, if you had 100% people, less than 5% of them could be classed as more intelligent purely because of their genes. The study also noted that when comparing all the implemented genes with the variance in intelligence, they could be responsible for a 1.9 fold increase. This means that if a person had all of the 52 alleles, their intelligence could be double someone who didn't have any of those alleles. BUT, it's unlikely that a person would inherit all of those specific alleles. The study also didn't make it clear what they meant by intelligence- which is honestly such a vague term. Most of these intelligent and genetic studies use IQ - which is now argued to be outdated and doesn't measure cognitive abilities accurately. Intelligence can also be about verbal comprehension and spatial visualisation, as well as creativity and social intelligence.
You can also argue that differences in intelligence are more to do with differences in resources than your genetic code. For example, lets say kids at a private school score higher in their exams than the local secondary down the road. Are the private school kids any more intelligent than the local secondary school Probably not- but they are provided with more resources. Other factors that have been known to increase intelligence are parenting, healthcare and nutrition. A child, no matter their genetic code, can reach their full potential if they are surviving from illness and are not eating properly.
So in short, James Watson wasn't completely and utterly wrong here. There was a fragment of truth in what he was saying. Genes do have a role in intelligence which can't be denied. But to imply deliberately or otherwise that genes are the only controlling factor in intelligence- without actually defining what he meant by intelligence, makes his statement completely inaccurate and misleading, as well as totally offensive.
Next up is Richard Dawkins. This one is actually a bit pedantic in my opinion as most scientists would hopefully know what he meant but he did unintentionally cause some confusion and debate.
In his book, 'The Selfish Gene', Dawkins stated that genes were 'selfish'. When taken in context, Dawkins was talking about how a gene that influences whether it will be inherited or not, will become more common in a population. For example, if one version of a gene produces more of a hormone that increases fertility, as opposed to another version of a gene that produces less of the hormone, the one that increases fertility will most likely be passed on. Dawkins pointed out that one allele of the Segregation Distorter (SD) gene complex in fruit flies results in sperm that don't have this specific allele dying, so only sperm containing the mutated SD survive. This reduces overall fertility but increases transmission of this SD. Hence, 'selfish'.
Dawkins was not wrong in this theories but the problem we have here is that Dawkins has used metaphorical and simplistic language that was misleading when taken out of context. He seems to imply that genes are capable of conscious thought and directly influence behaviour-i.e. making someone selfish.
It opens up another question. Do genes control behaviour? Well, not directly. Genes are responsible for the production of proteins, and some of these proteins are needed for brain development, as well as hormones. These biological systems are what influence behaviour. Problems with these systems, caused by proteins can change behaviour -i.e. MAOA is needed for the breakdown of neurotransmitters such as serotonin. So, mutations of MAOA can alter levels of neurotransmitters which may alter behaviour. But as in the previous example, the environment also plays a role.
Funny how the first two examples of Scisimplifalse have involved genetics. It's a relatively new field in science and its rapid expansion and potential means its inevitably prone to a lot of misinterpretation. But moving away from genetics, up next is Elon Musk.
In December 2021, Elon Musk tweets that SpaceX is starting a program to turn C02 from the atmosphere into rocket fuel, and inviting people to join.
Okay. He's not actually that wrong here- CO2 CAN be used to generate fuel. But Elon Musk makes this process seem a lot more simplistic than it actually is.
To turn CO2 from the atmosphere into fuel, the first thing you need to do is get the C02 in the first place- for this, you need a process called Direct Air Capture. This is extremely expensive and needs a lot of energy. Where could you get the energy for DAC? Possibly by burning fossil fuels... which leads to C02 being released again.
Once you have the C02, you must then react CO2 with hydrogen. This process will give you water and methane- a viable rocket fuel. Also a natural gas. Which you can find naturally or produce in quite a few other ways. To get it from C02 plus hydrogen, you will require a whole load of energy and to be flippant, a whole load of money. But I suppose someone like Elon Musk doesn't need to worry about the finance side of things.
In summary, Elon Musk seems to be implying that we can easily get rid of CO2 by converting it to rocket fuel. Well, you can produce 'rocket fuel' if you have big enough pockets, but you aren't making anything particularly unique. You probably aren't getting rid of any C02 either- you're probably burning more in the process.
Last one on this list is Dominic Lawson, a British journalist and columnist. In March 2006, Lawson writing for The Independent, made the following statement.
“The UK contributes only 2% of global CO₂, so cutting our emissions has no statistically significant effect on the future of the world's climate".
Okay, the statistic that Dominic Lawson presents here wasn't - and still isn't, actually wrong. As of 2024, it has been suggested that the UK now contributes less than 1% of global C02 seems to imply that the UK shouldn't really be bothering about getting to net zero. This is just wrong. When we consider each person's individual carbon footprint, we will find that as of 2023, the average British person is responsible for 4.4 tonnes of C02 per year. The global average of C02 emissions per person is 4.8 tonnes. As the UK makes up 0.84% of the population, this also gives the UK a lower share in global C02.
But the statistic has been coupled with a statement that is completely oversimplified. Lawson seems to imply that we shouldn't be bothering so hard to get the UK to net zero, because it won't have any impact on climate change. The idea of net zero carbon has been quite prominent and what it means is that the total amount of C02 added to the atmosphere is equal to the amount removed from the atmosphere. It's not attempting to stop C02 emissions completely- its just aiming to have a zero net impact.
This statistic completely ignores the fact that UK consumption of C02 is reliant on goods manufactured abroad. For example, if the UK outsources production to China, the emissions from this production are counted as part of China's carbon footprint- and not the UK's. So, the "2%" figure is shifting responsibility elsewhere and the real figure- the total emissions that the UK is ultimately responsible for, will be higher.
What Lawson also seems to forget is that climate change is not about who is producing the most right now.- it's about who emitted and who can reduce emissions. Climate change is not going to skip countries because they didn't emit as much as the one next to it. The impact of C02 emissions is global - everyone has and is contributing to the total C02 in the atmosphere. It's also worth pointing out that the UK was one of the top historical contributors due to the Industrial Revolution. The UK was actually one of the first to start emitting C02 on a large scale. So it's a bit rich to try and be shirking responsibility.
Logically, if everyone thought like Dominic Lawson seems to want us to think, then no country will ever make any effort to reduce their C02 emissions. The UK does still have some influence in international climate leadership and can be trying, in want of a better, less twee phase, can set an example. The UK is developed enough and has enough ability - and responsibility to be cutting emissions.
The danger of these comments and statements is that they appear to be true. They are backed up with valid statistics- and they are presented by people who are on the whole well-known in their fields. Every article with James Watson featured will present him as the man who 'discovered DNA' or maybe the man who 'co-discovered the structure of DNA'. No one ever mentions that James Watson didn't really make any other major discoveries after this- or that the majority of the DNA structure research had been done by others. But point is, it makes him sound important, and intelligent which has the problem of making him somewhat influential.
The majority of people can roll our eyes at Donald Trump and Jennifer McCartney- I would hope that the majority of people can accept that they really don't know anything when it comes to scientific developments and facts. But when a well-respected scientific or public figure makes a point that seems logical and that it could be correct, it becomes a great deal harder not to believe it. For example, most people with a modicum of intelligence (genetically linked or not) can work out that injecting disinfectant is really not a good idea, but when someone is able to present some statistics and a seemingly sensible point... well, that's where the damage starts. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to fix this said damage. Humans appear to like sensational statements and it is much harder to get someone to STOP believing than getting someone TO believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment