I enjoyed Simon Jenkins’ characteristically spirited call to stop elevating scientists to godly heights; and who could disagree that disputes should be “open so that fads, conventions and vested interests can be challenged” (Scientists aren’t gods, 9 June)?
The challenge is how to help the public to ask those tough questions while also working out what to believe amid the conflicting claims on diet and breathless promises of new cancer cures. Entertaining as they are, the bare-knuckle fights beloved of broadcasters won’t help. But it is far from impossible. There is good-quality evidence out there from well-designed trials built over many years and replicated by many research groups, and there is bad evidence, cherry-picked to prove a point by experts who prefer a radio studio to a laboratory.
Replacing blind trust in science with scrutiny is a great idea. Presenting all scientific claims as equally dodgy and all scientists for sale is lazy thinking and a recipe for ill health.
Fiona Fox
Chief executive officer, Science Media Centre
• The problem is differentiating good science from bad, bad science not being science at all. Karl Popper’s writings advised on how to differentiate true science from pseudoscience. Any scientific claims should be presented in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis, which may be the best explanation unless or until replaced by a better hypothesis. Unless an hypothesis is presented in this form, it does not qualify as scientific.
The classic example is the insights provided by Einstein over and above those of Isaac Newton. The majority of the types of empty claims referred to by Simon Jenkins fail to follow this requirement. Hence, the profusion of nebulous pseudoscientific claims presented to the public should be treated with scepticism.
Dr Anthony Eisinger
Buckland Betchworth, Surrey
• Simon Jenkins complains that not a day passes without news of imminent salvation or disaster from some branch of science. In fact, the most critical scrutiny of scientific claims comes from other scientists, who base their criticism on evidence. Talk of “astonishing breakthroughs” and “sensational cures” comes from journalists.
Dick Taverne
House of Lords, London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
