Scientists And The What If Scenario

I got thinking the other day about how difficult it's been for environmental scientists to make their voices heard as the climate change crisis has developed over the past several decades. Until former Vice President Al Gore appeared in the film An Inconvenient Truth, it seemed as though the message was never going to be received in any mainstream manner (at least in North America). Gore, who isn't even a scientist but rather a well-known political figure, managed to get a lot of people interested in a topic that up to that point had only gotten much attention in scientific and fringe liberal circles. Why did it take the involvement of someone who's more of a pop culture star than an "egghead" to bust through that barrier? And why is there still so much resistance to the facts that are becoming so impossible to ignore?

Then I remembered how, in the first half of the 20th century, scientists seemed to be much more highly regarded. Look at the science fiction movies of the 1950s and early 60s, for example, and for every "mad scientist threatening to destroy the world" stereotype there are probably half a dozen counter examples of noble, even heroic eggheads who are using their impressive brain power to save the world from giant ants, an approaching asteroid, or alien invasion. Consider the importance of the Albert Einstein-like Professor Barnhardt, in 1951's classic The Day the Earth Stood Still. There it's Barnhardt and the rest of the world's most brilliant minds who are the only hope for averting disaster if the awesome power of alien Klaatu's police force judges Earth to be too dangerous to be allowed to survive. This is pure brain over brawn, writ large, for all the movie-viewing world (especially kids) to see.

Somewhere along the line, in my own lifetime, scientists stopped being considered role models. Sure, we all still benefit on a daily basis from the vaccines, cures, gadgets, efficiency improvements and other advancements that come from the application and extension of the various sciences, but few people seem to view the folks doing that mental heavy lifting as worthy not only of respect, but possibly of admiration, as well. If you watch some of the conservative spokespeople in the U.S., in fact, you'd tend to believe that most science is pure chicanery, performed to undermine religious beliefs or push ideological agendas. The irony implicit in that stance is enough to make your teeth ache, and yet it's lost on a sizable portion of the population. They're happy to take the fruits of scientists' labours but only so long as the direction of the research and findings don't conflict with their own superstitions, business interests or personal biases.

But think how differently we'd be positioned right now, vis-a-vis climate change, if the late 20th and earliest 21st centuries had been characterized by a re-discovery of the importance of science, rather than by an increasing rejection of its principles. In most of those impending disaster movies of the 1950s, people entrusted their fates to the white lab coated members among them who'd proven over time to be driven by facts, not beliefs; by repeatable results, not repeated doctrine; and by a thirst for knowledge, not a desire to protect their own self-interests. In other words, they placed their faith in the people who were most likely to tell them the truth, instead of following whomever happened to feed them the most of whatever they wanted to hear. It's just too bad that the reality has proven to speak so much more poorly for our species than the lofty expectations we used to hold for ourselves. And in the end, that may be what does us in.