Science is frequently portrayed as an objective discipline whose findings are indisputable. Yet increasingly, members of the scientific, political and philosophical communities are beginning to point to the inherent human biases in this approach to knowledge.

Many people, including Harvard professors and world leaders, are now mulling over the proper role of science in modern culture.

Vice President Al Gore '69 and Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel are but two political leaders who have realized the bias in science and are now looking to alternatives to the scientific world order.

Scientific findings are generally perceived as absolute truth. They influence every aspect of human life, from visits to the doctor to deciding what to cook for dinner.

But Professor of Physics Howard Georgi says that because science is a human endeavor, personal bias cannot be wholly separated from the scientific results.

"Human nature is one of the reasons that the [scientific] process isn't always smooth," says Georgi. "If you look at experimental results, there are pressures on experiments from all sides so they don't uniformly and evenly approach the right answer."

For example, researchers working with cold fusion might have an incentive to make their research results appear valid, since they will lose their jobs if their theory is proved wrong. Conversely, researchers might not want to advance highly controversial theories for fear of losing valuable respect in the scientific community.

Harvey Brooks, Pierce professor of technology and public policy and professor of applied physics, says any uncertainty present in scientific data will inevitably produce conflicting results based on human bias.

"Even among experts who strive mightly and sincerely to be impartial in their assessments, policy preferences will nevertheless significantly influence the interpretation of data and evidence when uncertainties are present," writes Brooks in a paper published in Science, Technology, & Human Values.

Discrediting Science

Given that the bias in science is acknowledged by scientists themselves, many modern political and philosophical thinkers are joining a backlash against science to remove the influence it now holds over modern culture.

Philosopher Paull Karl Feyerabend, a former professor at the University of California at Berkeley, is quoted in Scientific American as saying, "Leading intellectuals with their zeal for objectivity...are criminals, not the liberators of mankind."

The statement by Feyerabend illustrates how emotionally charged some "anti-scientists" can be in trying to topple science from its pedestal.

Though Feyerabend's comments may be rather extreme for an "anti-scientist," the sentiment has definitely worked its way into mainstream thought.

Havel, for one, is a strong critic of the universality of modern science. At a speech in Philadelphia's Independence Hall last summer, Havel said, "Experts can explain anything in the objective world to us, yet we understand our own lives less and less."

Havel said that because scientific observation could not be done objectively, science can only mislead in its attempts to explain the definitive nature of the universe.

In the book Vaclav Havel, or Living in Truth, Havel is quoted as saying science "kills God and takes his place on thevacant throne so that....science would be the solelegitimate arbiter of absolute truth."

Havel suggests that under the guise ofobjectivity, science steals the inexplicablewondrous nature from the human soul and leaves agaping hole in its wake.

Feyerabend agrees that objective reality is notknowable through science. He says of scientificresults, "What they have figured out is oneparticular response to their actions, and thereality that is behind this is laughing, 'Ha ha!They think they have found me out!"

Anti-Science in Politics

The depiction of science as a misperceived pathtowards unequivocal truth has also becomeprevalent in American politics.

California representative George E. Brown Jr.wrote in the Los Angeles Times of the follies ofscience: "The promise of science--a miraclecure--serves politicians, who always are lookingfor a tonic to sell to the public, and it servesscientists, who understandably seek to preservetheir elevated position in our culture."

Brown, former chair of the House Science, Spaceand Technology Committee, says that science'sreputation as an absolute truth makes itvulnerable to political abuse. Many are tempted touse science as a "cure" when it is not fullyapplicable.

"Indeed, the promise of science may be at theroot of our problems, because it iseasier--politically, economically, socially,scientifically--to support more research than itis to change how we behave," writes Brown.

Post-Modernism

Many of the ideas championed by Brown,Feyerabend and Havel are part of the movement of"post-modernism."

The post-modernist theory states that thematerialistic, rationalistic, scientific idealogyof Western culture has reached its limit and isnow causing a rapid cultural collapse.

Post-modernism regards partiality in science aspart of an inescapable universal bias. Accordingto post-modernist theory, no truths can beuniversally held, since all concepts of trutharise from local influences.

Paul R. Gross of the University of Virginia andNorman Levitt of Rutgers University write in theirbook Higher Superstition: "there is noknowledge...there are merely stories,'narratives,' devised to satisfy the human need tomake some sense of the world."

The Gaia Concept

One popular theory that has arisen out ofpost-modernistic philosophy is the "Gaia" concept.

Proponents of the "Gaia" theory, introduced in1972 by James Lovelock, believe the Earth can beviewed as a single harmonious organism. "Gaia"refers to a unified geologically and biologicallybalanced planet whose components comprise aself-regulating system optimized for sustaininglife.

Adherents to the Gaia theory include VicePresident Gore and Princeton physicist FreemanDyson.

Opponents of the theory say its subjectivitytends to debunk itself. Author Nicholas Wadewrites in the New York Times Magazine: "...[theGaia theory] quickly becomes mystical since it sostrongly implies a nice greenhouse with athermostat and a kindly gardener who set thesystem in motion."

The Scientific Defense

Many scientists say the attacks againstobjective science are difficult to counter sincethe criticisms tend to circumvent objectivityaltogether.

"It's hard to counter [the anti-sciencemovement] because it's so obviously wrong," saysGeorgi. Calling post-modernism a disease, he says,"I wish I knew why it was so popular."

Georgi admits that the anti-science philosophycorrectly recognizes the huge social structuresurrounding science. But he says post-modernism"misses the point that there's something beneaththat structure."

Professor of Chemistry Dudley Herschbach sayspost-modernist theory seems to be somewhatself-contradictory. "It seems to be a sort ofnihilistic thing," he says. "[Post-modernisttheory] is like explaining to a farmer that hedoesn't know what a cow is."

"Apply post-modernism to post-modernism," saysHerschbach, suggesting that a philosophy thatdenies all absolutes cannot admit its ownexistence.

Herschbach says science always begins as aninquiry into a subjective question, so objectivityis initially hardly an issue. "When you makebricks, you start with mud," he says.

Only later, when the results of an inquiry aretested (become bricks), does objectivity become akey part of valid science, says Herschbach. Thecarefully tested results of science result in "awhole network that hangs together amazingly well."

Emphasizing the paradox of post-modernism hesays,"...if you want to be rigorouslyphilosophical you can say you never know anythingabout anything."

The Spread of Anti-Science

Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics Gerald Holtonwrites in his book Science and Anti-Sciencethat historically, anti scientific movements suchas postmodernism have the potential to becomepseudo-scientific value systems.

"[Cases] include such diverse instancesas...the 'Aryan' science in Germany...[and] theanti-science campaign associated with China'sCultural Revolution," writes Holton.

Professor of Physics John Huth says he wasalarmed by the postmodern views he encountered inCongress when he participated in the debate overfunding the Superconducting Supercollider, a giantparticlesmasher in Texas whose funding was cut inOctober 1993. "The post-modernist view had creptin around the edges in Washington," says Huth.

Huth says he e-mailed colleagues around theworld to express his concern over thepost-modernist movement, which led to contact withthe National Science Board of the Czech republic.

After reading an editorial in the New YorkTimes by Havel, Huth was encouraged to write aresponse which was recently completed and will beprinted in a Czech national science journal. "Icouldn't resist the opportunity to write aresponse that would be printed in the Czechrepublic," he says.

Subjectivity: Healthy For Science?

Some scientists say an understanding of thesubjectivity involved in science strengthens itsown system of checks and balances.

"There is and ought to be a thoroughly thoughtout and skeptical view of both science andnon-science at all times," says Holton.

He says that skepticism is the foundation forscience's validity.

"Practically all of basic science is insulatedbecause it passes through peer review," he says.

Holton says such review makes a misuse ofscience through politics unlikely, since everyapplication is judged by fellow scientists ratherthan bureaucrats or politicians.

Although the validity of scientific researchmay not be a question, politics and science canstill become intimately embroiled with each other,according to Pratt Public Service Professor LewisM. Branscomb, director of the science, technologyand public policy program at the Kennedy School.

"Once you get a [scientific] idea started,politics pretty swiftly takes over," Branscombsays.

Commenting on the support by Texasrepresentatives to fund the supercollider,Branscomb says, "The political approach didn'thave to do with finding top quarks, but had to dowith prestige and the value of high tech commerceto the local communities,"

Branscomb says there is an economic need forgovernment involvement in science. "Theutilitarian value of science is so important to ahigh wage society that you need a huge publicinvestment," he says.

And according to Branscomb, the governmentshould have no problem obtaining a fullunderstanding of the biases of science.

"The government is loaded with [scientific]people of first class talent who can make firstclass judgements," he says.

Holton says he is confident that a properbalance of criticism and acceptance of sciencewill exist in American politics due to the natureof the nation's democracy. "The wonderful thingabout the American political scene is it wasinvented by people who were reacting to excesses,"he says.

Democracy provides a constant dialogue whichprevents "bad-science" from rising to power.Holton adds that when democracy is absent, no suchcheck exists.

"When science [of a totalitarian nation]interacts with political beliefs, the scientistsare taken to task and have to pay for it," saysHolton.

On a recent trip to China, Holton says he foundthe scientific texts were still based on "mid 19thcentury Marxist" theory long ago discredited byWestern science.

Holton says the Chinese scientists had a "greathunger" for a scientific philosophy which wouldallow them to break away from their outdatedtexts. Holton says this hunger for new ideas isencouraging but fragile, since it can besuppressed at any moment by a dictatorship.

But Professor of English and ComparativeLiterature James Engell '73 says he is concernedwith the amount of resources the U.S. alreadyinvests in science. "The intellectual energy andresources that we spend on science is enormous,"he says.

Engell says the increasing economic focus ofuniversities may allow the natural sciences toinadvertently dominate the academic scene.

"Universities are so money driven thathumanities people are under the gun. They feelthat since they don't bring in money and don'tgarner large research grants they end up beingtreated as second or third class citizens," Engellsays.

Herschbach was asked to comment on the fearthat science may eventually encompass and explainall of human culture, including the humanities.

"I would never imagine such a thing," he says.Crimsonlee Ching WuProfessor of Physics JOHN HUTHCrimsonlee Ching Wu