Anthony Liversidge - Scorn of Heretics
Anthony Liversidge - Scorn of Heretics
Anthony Liversidge - Scorn of Heretics
Liversidge
Conference on Science and Democracy Naples, April 2001/NYC 2002
on both sides of the debate and this soon established an equally unexpected finding.
The replies of the leaders of the field to his points were hardly purely scientific. In
fact, they were consistently specious, biased and personal, rather than scientific.
Determined to get to the bottom of this conflict, I conveyed point and
counter point between the two camps until the issues involved seemed exhausted.
In doing so I noticed a key difference in behavior. Duesberg would act responsibly.
He would take every point raised against him into account, and answer it fully from
the evidence. His opponents would typically answer his points with disparagement
and dismissal. Politics, rather than science, was being brought to bear to repress
rather than answer his arguments.
Power politics
This politics of incuriosity soon extended into my own profession, I found.
There was an initial honeymoon period, in which my sense that Duesberg had a
most convincing case provoked surprised interest from editors. But eventually it
became difficult to sell them on covering the dispute, despite the enormous stakes
involved in terms of dollars and lives. Eventually, prejudice became almost
complete. An editor at Science asked me if I could find something else to write
about. An editor at Omni, a popular science magazine, ordered me not to mention
Duesberg's name ever again, though I did manage later to include Duesberg in a
roundup article on heresy in science which is reproduced on the conference site.2
Not all such moves were in private. Nature's then-editor John Maddox took
a part in publicly repressing Duesberg, cutting short the debate in his pages and
limiting Duesberg's responses to critics.3 At one point he advised his readers not to
read the London Sunday Times, a British weekly newspaper that covered the dissent
at length. Maddox would inform them if anything significant was reported, he said.
On the bureaucratic level, a senior NIH official, Anthony Fauci, was quoted in an
NIH newsletter warning that reporters who covered Duesberg would be cut off.
Lacking the power to flout lack of editorial interest and the resistance of
mainstream sources, I moved on to other topics. As I checked back from time to
time over the decade I found that AIDS media politics never improved. Major
reporters have won medals for coverage of AIDS which resolutely ignores
Duesberg's views, and young reporters who know no better are now being warned
not to cover Duesberg's equally revisionist views on the cause of cancer in case they
lend him credence and "isolate" themselves.
For example, the editor of the California Monthly magazine at the University
of Berkeley was recently put under a "Duesberg embargo" from his board of
directors. Even though the topic is now not Duesberg’s AIDS heresy but his new
and promising theory of cancer, 4 Duesberg is not to be "legitimized". The editor
chafing under these guidelines is, as it happens, a long time friend of Duesberg's.
In that case, it may be no coincidence that Duesberg's new view of cancer
contradicts the oncogene paradigm, which has proved a rich lode of funding for
cancer researchers for the last fifteen years. Duesberg's skepticism on oncogenes,
genes that supposedly cause cancer, is all the more significant if we consider that he
was once on the fast track to the Nobel prize for being the first scientist to isolate an
oncogene, from the Rous sarcoma virus.
The point is that this closemindedness is not the standard filtering out of an
untutored crackpot whose new and iconoclastic theory is founded on ignorance.
This is remarkable ostracism of an established scientist of impeccable reputation,
whose papers and results have never otherwise been questioned. This is the
establishment repressing the establishment, and suppressing the free exchange of
views with an equal.
In the battle of credentials, one might even rate Duesberg superior. He has
been a member of the National Academy of Science, the premier self-elected body
in US science, longer than his major opponents in his fight against the hypothesis
that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The discoveries of two of his most powerful foes,
moreover, have been questioned in two celebrated instances and their claims
disproved and withdrawn. None of Duesberg's scientific statements or work has
been challenged except his skeptical view of two unproven theories—oncogenes,
and of HIV as the cause of AIDS.
Still an open question
There is little point here in going through all the many stark problems in the
AIDS-HIV paradigm that Duesberg and others have pointed to. But one can
mention the main ones They begin with the fact that tests for HIV were positive in
only 88% of the patients sampled by Robert Gallo in the papers on which the
unconventional hypothesis was founded, and HIV was claimed isolated in only 41%
(26 of 63). 5 They end with the fact that no better proof of cause has been
produced in the years since. Instead, there have been years of accumulating
outrages to common sense. Among them: the blood of AIDS patients contains too
little HIV, it infects too few T4 cells, it replicates in vitro harmlessly in the same cells,
and too many AIDS patients test negative for HIV.
The chief difficulty for dissenters now is that virtually all of the data of the
field rests on the assumption that HIV is the cause. The presence of the virus
defines AIDS. Even its name is self-serving: Human Immunodeficiency Virus. This
circularity is one of the paradoxical complications that wall off the ruling paradigm
from examination and protect it from public review.
A short list of the inconsistencies inherent in the paradigm is included in "The
Limits of Science" on this conference's Web site, and many more can easily be
found on the Internet.6 The most impressive are the different symptoms in different
global regions, and the strange inability of the phenomenon to behave like an
infectious disease in North America, where cases are tracked by actual testing, with
the number of Americans who are positive for HIV remaining steady at one million
or less throughout the sharp rise and recent fall of the epidemic. Instead, the
sensationally heralded US heterosexual outbreak has never occurred, while African
and Asian AIDS is reported as entirely heterosexual, actively infectious and
spreading alarmingly, though confirming testing is severely limited, and the totals of
all deaths in the countries concerned do not rise significantly.
Proponents have an answer for every point, critics have an answer for them,
and so on, in the manner of Ptolemaic astronomy defending itself against
Copernicus. This zig-zag of point-counterpoint makes for a logical hall of mirrors.
Added to this, the skeptics are asked to prove a negative, namely, that HIV cannot
be the cause of AIDS, which is notoriously difficult as a matter of logic, and
especially in this instance, since many cases where HIV is not detected are still
counted as AIDS cases, because it is nonetheless assumed that HIV is present. If it
is accepted that it isn't, then the condition isn't counted as AIDS. They are also
asked to provide and prove an alternative cause, which is also difficult when all the
data gathering assumes that HIV is the cause.
In sum, it is not possible to drive home or refute the critique until independent
research is funded. Those versed in traditional biology can, however, judge a priori
how far fetched the HIV hypothesis's rationale is, and how unlikely its logical pillars,
set against conventional understanding of retroviruses and disease.
7 PHILLIPS A.N, SMITH G.D., 1997: “Viral load and combination therapy
for human immunodeficiency virus. The New England Journal of Medicine 336,
no. 13, pp 958-9; ALTMAN, L (2001c). U.S. warns doctors to limit use of anti-HIV
drug. New York Times, Jan. 5, p A12.; Associated Press (2001). Delaying HIV
drugs may be OK. New York Times, November 27; HOGG, R S, YIP, B, CHAN, K
J, WOOD, E, CRAIB, K J, O'SHAUGHNESSY, M V, MONTANER, J S (2001)
Rates of Disease Progression by Baseline CD4 Cell Count and Viral Load After
Initiating Triple-Drug Therapy. Jama 286: (20) 2568-2577.; PHILLIPS, A N,
STASZEWSKI, S, WEBER, R, KIRK, O, FRANCIOLI, P, MILLER, V,
VERNAZZA, P, LUNDGREN, J D, LEDERGERBER, B (2001) HIV Viral Load
Response to Antiretroviral Therapy According to the Baseline CD4 Cell Count and
Viral Load. Jama 286: (20) 2560-2567.
and a virus transmitted 25-50% through birth which has produced no epidemic
among children.10
That list is long enough, I think you will agree, that a New Yorker such as
myself might be forgiven for saying “If you can believe all that, I have a bridge I
would like to sell you.” Duesberg asserts that all these paradoxes are resolved if we
simply accept that AIDS is a drug phenomenon, or elsewhere a picture artificially
created by gathering other diseases under the AIDS umbrella, where any
occurrence of disease is relabeled AIDS if HIV antibodies are reckoned to be
present. I know of no good reason to disbelieve him. One good reason to believe
him is that there is no AIDS disease among HIV positive patients who abstain from
recreational and medicating drugs.11
Still, while it is an enormously important question whether the hypothesis is
right or wrong, for the purposes of this talk it is irrelevant. My topic here is the
influences on science which bias judgement, pervert its practice and handicap
dissenters with prejudice, so that we all are deaf to their analysis.
Under that heading I suggest that those influences are political and
psychological, that they are exemplified in the case of AIDS science, and that I have
had personal experience of them at work. But such claims of political rather than
professional behavior among scientists in dealing with Duesberg do not have to be
credited on my testimony alone.
The evidence in Challenges
All this and more has been documented with excruciating precision in Yale
mathematics professor Serge Lang's book Challenges, ably reviewed by Marco
Mamone Capria in his article reproduced on the Web site of this Conference.12
Challenges is a masterful performance. Lang has extraordinary attributes as
an investigator of political behavior, and Challenges is a collection of clear
documentations of the ways in which members of the science and academic
establishment evade responsibility on a number of issues.
14 LIVERSIDGE A., 1988: "Words from the Front: Interview with Robert
Gallo", SPIN, February 1988; "Words from the Front:Interview with Robert Gallo",
SPIN, March 1989. See http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/aliversidge.htm
The Scorn of Heretics 10 Anthony F. Liversidge
Conference on Science and Democracy Naples, April 2001/NYC 2002
views, but consciously put them aside as too late for him even as he acknowledged
they were persuasive.15 A writer for Vanity Fair, a national magazine in the US,
had the same response when I alerted him to the full situation a few months before
his death. "I have no alternative now but to rely on my doctors," he said.
Such emotional dependence is understandable when patients believe
themselves in danger of dying. But given the media exposure of the fallibility of the
medical profession in recent years, and the new availability of medical information to
laymen on the Web, it is surprising that it continues. In recent years meta-analysis
and other research has checked beliefs against evidence and exposed much
conventional medical wisdom as myth. Contrary to the previous belief of most
doctors, the placebo effect does not exist, mammogram screenings do not save lives,
the heart can repair itself and bed rest is not the right treatment for lower back pain
(light exercise and getting back on your feet are now prescribed).16 Meanwhile,
gross individual fallibility has been found even among surgeons. At least 150 times
since 1996 in the US, surgeons in hospitals have operated on the wrong arm, leg,
eye, kidney or other body part, or even on the wrong patient.17
Both in AIDS science and medicine, however, there is this almost universal
reflex rejection of even the possibility that we are on the wrong track. Yet many of
the statements of AIDS theory conflict with conventional science, not to mention
plain common sense, the chief heretic is a member of the establishment of otherwise
unchallenged credentials, and statistical predictions of cases based upon this
hypothesis continue to fail completely.
The urgent question for science is: what is it that can cause an expert
establishment reviewer to be irrationally disdained, and can the system be reformed
to remove this flaw? Given that Serge Lang, myself and other reporters have well
documented the fact that a majority of professional scientists in AIDS do actively
resist or scorn the reasoned review of a scientific idea, rather than fairly debate it,
what are the possible reasons that lie behind this behavior?
Having spent a decade and a half watching the course of events in AIDS, I
16 HITT, J., 2001: “Evidence Based Medicine", New York Times Magazine,
Dec 9, p 69.
would say there are dozens of interrelated influences, motivations, and mechanisms,
some rational but many irrational. Some are obvious to the worldly, some more
unexpected. Those that are not flaws of the system are elements of the political and
psychological atmosphere of present day science and society, and human failings
that are always with us—but against which science should be on guard. The most
visible are various forms of self-interest in the arena of power. But ultimately, I
believe, the most overlooked are various aspects of one of the oldest traits of
humanity, the religious impulse.
All of them are important because they are reasons why we may flout
common sense, and credit the possibility that a virtually universal belief in science,
one of extreme consequence, may be highly questionable, yet reign undisturbed.
The politics of disdain
First, there are the obvious political mechanisms, motivations and pressures.
As Jacob Bronowski has proclaimed, "No science is immune to the infection of
politics and the corruption of power." Paradigms are defended by political
arguments, as well as or in place of reason and evidence.
In AIDS, for example, the dissenters have long been accused of endangering
the public welfare by encouraging sex without condoms, since they are undermining
the acceptance of HIV as the cause. The fact that this argument makes no scientific
sense at all hasn't prevented it from being used effectively for years. As Lang has
written, "sometimes when I have given a talk on HIV, questioning the orthodoxy,
members of the biomedical establishment have not come to my talk and have
refused to answer scientific questions, giving to colleagues the reason that what I do
is 'dangerous'."18
Even more political and irrational was the one page advertisement in the New
York Times published to counter dissent in AIDS, signed by a list of mainstream
scientists and health officials. This declaration of faith in the ruling hypothesis was
graced with the headline: "HIV Causes AIDS: To Argue Otherwise Costs Lives."
The claim was another blatant paralogism, of course. If the dissenters are right,
"arguing otherwise" will save lives.
Defenders who use political arguments to sustain a ruling paradigm are self-
evidently unscientific, and it is always disappointing to see that philosophers of
science such as Thomas Kuhn accept this as an inevitable flaw in the practice of
science. According to Kuhn a scientific paradigm is never overturned by logic and
evidence alone, but the revolution is achieved only after a political struggle.19
Given that politics is brought to bear, though, related factors are relevant in
explaining how review can be successfully buried. Dissenters may be ineffective
public leaders, for example. History shows that the acceptance or rejection of ideas
in science or medicine often hinges on the personalities of the researchers
involved.20
A dissenter may not be interested in fighting the political battle. One has
only to think of Barbara McClintock and her "jumping genes" in maize, a discovery
that was initially resisted, especially because she was a woman. A determinedly
independent researcher, McClintock did not devote much energy to politics and her
visionary achievement was ignored for decades. Only after 35 years, at the age of
81, was she awarded the Nobel.
Research scientists are not always suited to political roles, after all, though
their ability to raise funds for research is important in their work today. They may
be poor at persuading their peers or the public that their ideas deserve consideration.
For example, Peter Duesberg is a fine logician and a leading researcher, a fully paid
up member of the establishment, and a socially adept personality. But I believe he
was at first handicapped as a dissenter in AIDS by his quicksilver wit, often
exercised at the mild expense of his slower opponents. Given their endless
obstruction, his alleviating humor was understandable. But a uniformly sober stance
might have been more influential for a dissenter in a life and death matter in which
vast career and financial interests were involved.
On the other side disparagement and scorn for the heretic may be liberally
applied by defenders. In the AIDS debate, the leaders of the field, the major media
and other supporters of the status quo have generally preferred not to answer the
arguments raised, but to ignore them or detract from and vilify the dissenter.
Duesberg is routinely painted as a tiresome maverick in media reports that prejudice
the public against him and demean his status as a respected, qualified reviewer.
Conformist pressures
Along with this there are institutional pressures to conform in the political
arena. One is the ethos of collegiality among established practitioners. Members of
an establishment tend to close ranks when under attack. Senior people avoid
fighting their peers, even when scientific truth is at stake. The participants recognize
that dissent should be muted for the common good. For example, Yale's Provost
in a 1987 letter implored Serge Lang not to " turn upon our own" but to give "an
extra ounce of trust and forgiveness" in exposing serious flaws in the thinking of a
prominent Yale political scientist.21
A factor in the US may be a general pressure to conform in this once
revolutionary democratic society, a pressure long ago characterized as a new
'tyranny' by Alexis de Toqueville in Democracy in America:
“I know no country in which, speaking generally, there is less
independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in
America....
"In America the majority has enclosed thought within a formidable
fence. A writer is free inside that area, but woe to the man who goes
beyond it. Not that he stands in fear of an auto-da-fe, but he must face
all kinds of unpleasantness and everyday persecution. A career in
politics is closed to him, for he has offended the only power who holds
the keys. He is denied everything, including renown. Before he goes
into print, he believes he has supporters; but he feels he has them no
more once he stands revealed to all, for those who condemn him
express their views loudly, while those who think as he does, but
without his courage, retreat into silence as if ashamed of having told
the truth.
"Formerly tyranny used the clumsy weapons of chains and hanging;
nowadays even despotism, though it seemed to have nothing more to
learn, has been perfected by civilization."22
Though Duesberg has not yet given up, this fairly describes the road he has
travelled.
The power of the media in modern society helps impose this kind of
conformity, many agree. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has pointed out that the corporate lockstep
mentality that imbues the media has resulted in an epidemic of mainstream thinking
in the US. 23
Anyone marching out of step is subject to the pressure of conformity in any
human group, a herd instinct which no doubt reflects the survival value of group
cohesion. After all, it is adaptive for primitive social animals to coordinate their
behavior, whether fleeing threats or hunting. Apparently this applies to ideas as well
as actions, and, like laughter, the mimicry tends to be contagious. In science as
elsewhere, the crowd is going to resist new ideas which disturb the shared status
quo. With this ingrained aspect of human nature to cling to the prevailing wisdom,
the more widely a notion is received, the harder it will be to dislodge.
But this kind of bonding emotion is exactly what the principles of professional
science are supposed to guard against. The outcome of a properly controlled
scientific experiment is wholly independent of the wishes and fears of both the
subjects and the experimenters. The thinking of any good scientist should be
immune to the opinion of the crowd.
All that should go without saying, yet it is being ignored in AIDS. Instead,
conformity acts as a wall against review, and is enhanced by institutional
endorsements, prizes and awards, ostracism of the heretic, and overvaluation of
public consensus.
The current paradigm in AIDS has enjoyed unprecedented endorsement from
all major institutions in science, government and health around the world, including
the US federal government, the National Institutes of Health, the New York Times,
the National Science Foundation, the United Nations and national governments
around the world. The now almost automatic support of overseas governments is
possibly related to the prospect of expanded aid from the US and the UN if they
adopt the HIV-AIDS model. In July 2000, for example, the US announced a plan to
offer $1 billion annually to sub-Saharan nations to buy American AIDS drugs and
medical services. 24
The outcome is a situation where the unproven claim of one individual
scientist, Robert Gallo, certified by the federal government before publication,
confirmation or review, has been adopted by colleagues in the field without final
proof and despite contradicting review, and certified by national and international
institutions around the world.
24 KAHN, J., 2000: “U.S. Offers Africa $1 Billion a Year For Fighting
AIDS”, New York Times, July 19, p.1
The Scorn of Heretics 16 Anthony F. Liversidge
Conference on Science and Democracy Naples, April 2001/NYC 2002
Self-reinforcing belief
Thus the conformity reinforces itself. Set against this universal institutional
endorsement, any challenge to orthodoxy appears ridiculous to the general public.
There is a California society, for example, which holds that Alice in Wonderland was
not written by Lewis Carroll, but by Queen Victoria. In a context of universal
endorsement, the challenge to the AIDS paradigm appears just as outlandish.
The single, rather unexpected exception to this unanimity among
governments is South Africa, whose president Thabo Mbeki is a thinker who went
to the Web to examine the debate for himself. He concluded that Duesberg had a
point, and convened a review panel on the topic before the AIDS conference in
2000 in Durban. 25
His own officials were embarrassed by his skepticism, however, as concerted
detraction was brought to bear from every quarter. The New York Times
questioned his sanity, and Nature printed the "Durban Declaration", a statement
signed by "over 5000 scientists including Nobel prizewinners reaffirming their faith
in the HIV paradigm.”26 The schoolboy fallacy here, of course, was the
misapprehension that science is a democracy and that its truths are decided by vote.
Some readers must have also wondered why, if the paradigm was so solidly based,
it needed a group declaration of faith in its virtue.
Unfortunately, the idea that a universal belief must be true is as appealing to
some scientists, it seems, as it is to the general public. One reason may be the
deluge of scientific data, and the impossibility of keeping up in one's professional
reading, given the endless array of journals in every field. Another reason is that
unusual ideas are usually wrong, in science as in society. Statistically, a maverick is
likely to be a misguided crank, so it saves a lot of time for practitioners in a field to
disregard unconventional views.
Certainly a widely accepted idea is a priori difficult to dislodge. Right or
wrong, ideas can be tyrants, as John Maynard Keynes remarked:
"The ideas of economists and political philosophers both when they are
right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly
understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who
believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences,
are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority,
who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some
academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of
vested interest is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual
encroachment of ideas."27
What is the chief mechanism of this gathering entrenchment? On the
sociological level it must surely come down to some form of multiplying utility.
Since we share a group susceptibility to the conventional wisdom, it infects us like
an intellectual virus, a meme. To replace it, a new meme must have social
advantages of some kind, above and beyond logic.
Perhaps these social advantages, which must be one big root of conformity in
science, add up to the so-called ‘network utility’ of an idea. I refer to a
phenomenon noticed in the realm of computer marketing: in any social network, the
more established an assumption becomes, the more useful it becomes for an
individual to hold it.
Network utility is seen most visibly in the spread of commercial software and
other products used with networks. The network utility of an operating system for
desktop computers increases with the number of people that adopt it. When only
10 per cent of computer users use the Windows operating system, its attraction for
newcomers is limited. As the number of users expands, however, its value to
individual users grows. Exchange of advice, assistance, instruction, and files is
facilitated by a shared language. By the time 80 per cent use Windows, it becomes
overwhelmingly attractive for newcomers, since it is common to so many users.
The network utility of an accepted idea in science presumably increases in the
same way. The more people believe in an idea, the more entrenched and useful it
becomes, economically and politically. Like computer software, ideas - the software
of the intellect - become more useful and valuable the more people share them.
Good or bad, a received notion acquires massive social utility. As Mark Twain
noted, "scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then
you can borrow money off them."
The network utility of the ideas of a dissenter is, on the other hand, almost
negligible, at least until he or she acquires a substantial following. Like the
attractive Apple operating system which now barely survives in a sea of Windows
machines, the ideas of a dissenter tend to stay confined to those who already
understand their quality. Proseltyzing is an uphill battle.
inconceivably embarrassing. Perhaps this is the cause of one journal editor's overt
hostility to the review of the HIV hypothesis. I am referring to John Maddox,
former editor of Nature, though he has vigorously denied the suggestion to me.
There is an experiment in social psychology which seems relevant here, a trial
which found that false contradiction from an authority has greater staying power in
the mind than the evidence of one's own eyes. People were given a flawed account
of some slides they had just witnessed. At first they detected the false descriptive
elements and recognized them as misinformation. Soon, however, the memories of
the original slides faded, and the misinformation became dominant.34
Unfortunately, there is a general lack of independent authority in science aside
from the scientists themselves. The hard won expertise of a specialist field is the
stock in trade of its members, and puts it comfortably beyond the investigation and
adjudication of most outsiders. In law, medicine and science the public is forced to
trust the experts who speak the technical language and understand the data, some of
whom may use jargon and special knowledge as camouflage for ignorance and
incompetence.
Usually such system flaws are the specialty of investigative journalists, but in
science there have been very few of these. Science reporters and editors use the
leaders of the scientific communities they cover as their reliable sources on new
developments, and they are not usually equipped to second guess them. The
dependence of media reporters on established sources tends to make them fellow
travelers. They cannot risk alienating the top scientists they rely on for briefing and
guiding them. They need their support and recognition, and they need their quotes.
Thus the media have become the megaphones of mainstream scientists. The
AIDS science writers of major newspapers in the US, even if aware of the problems
with the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, have rarely written about them or Duesberg. If
they do report on Duesberg, mainstream reporters don't hesitate to inform us that
his views ignore "overwhelming evidence" and have been "convincingly rebutted"
and "debunked point by point by scientists all over the world."35
Nor will they or other science journalists write about the one thing the public
needs to know in assessing any scientific dispute: when faced with a threat to the
status quo, the leaders of science will typically behave very partially. This
knowledge is commonplace among those who know science and scientists, yet it is
still widely unappreciated in society at large. Perhaps we should all reread Tolstoy,
who once said:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues,
which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven,
thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
Along with these circumstances, dissenters have to contend with the inability
of outsiders to assess a clash between experts. When experts disagree, it is often
said, outsiders cannot decide who is right. The expertise that is the stock in trade of
scientists, lawyers, doctors and other professionals protects their judgement from
review by outsiders.
Accessible to outsiders
But the scientific debate in AIDS, at least, is not beyond informed assessment
by non-specialists. If investigative reporters or others are able and willing to spend
the time, they can read through and assess the reasoning involved in the debate. A
few courageous mainstream media reporters have interviewed and reported on
dissenters and their publications, and members of the public can read their coverage
of dissent, or even read the original material to advantage.
Reason, after all, is not the private preserve of professionals. The data may be
technical but the question is whether editors and publishers wish to devote the time
and resources to the project. Unfortunately, in the system at present, only
independent reporters and filmmakers have devoted the time and effort needed to
assess the issue for themselves.
The review material in AIDS, notably the articles by Peter Duesberg in
Cancer Research in 1987 and The Proceedings of the National Academy in 1988,
can be read to advantage by any intelligent layman who wishes to check the
reasoning involved in challenging the AIDS-HIV claim. Significantly, virtually all
the points made are still valid. 36
38 HILTS, P.J. 2000: “Company Tried to Block Report that its HIV Vaccine
Failed.”, New York Times, Nov 1.
The Scorn of Heretics 24 Anthony F. Liversidge
Conference on Science and Democracy Naples, April 2001/NYC 2002
39 HORTON, R., 2001: "Thalidomide Comes Back", The New York Review
of Books, May 17.
The Scorn of Heretics 25 Anthony F. Liversidge
Conference on Science and Democracy Naples, April 2001/NYC 2002
Human weaknesses
Finally, beyond the flaws and politics of the system, there are many human
weaknesses that may maintain scientific paradigms against review.
A familiar factor is the stultifying effect of high position and advancing age
which make it harder in some ways for people to keep up with new material, let
alone revise their ideas. For senior scientists, other priorities assert themselves and
crowd out the time for personal research. The appetite for revising the basic
premises of one's work tends to weaken over time, for they form the foundation of
one's lengthening career.
Applying for grants takes up the bulk of the time of senior researchers in
science; administering their labs and the projects that get funded, faculty politicking,
and expanding professional horizons take up the rest. Under such conditions, not all
senior scientists do their own experiments, let alone have time to conduct a serious
review of the basic premise on which their group's work is founded.
Closemindedness may therefore become a facet of aging even in science, a
field which advances only through a constructive subversiveness. As a World Bank
official recently put it:
"Science advances by having a new paradigm overthrow the old, or at
least expand its applicability in new ways. Thus inherent in the scientific
outlook is a willingness to overthrow the established order of thinking,
or else there will be no progress. Frequently, those who come up with
the new insights are remarkably young. Einstein was 26 when he
wrote his five papers, and Dirac was 27 when he hypothesized anti-
matter, and so on. This means that seniority cannot rule
unchallenged."43
Not that breakthroughs are always made by the young, of course. Oswald
Avery was 67 when he made the landmark discovery that DNA is the substance of
the genes. But once a paradigm reigns, the attractions of an alternative dwindle
rapidly for its leading representatives. Its replacement means loss of status and
stipend.
In AIDS, as mentioned, there would be enormous penalties for its leading
personalities in moving to a different view of the cause of AIDS. Entire
professional careers are based on the ruling idea, large laboratories have been
funded, the media have put many in the limelight as authorities on AIDS trends,
prizes have been awarded, royalties paid on patented tests, speaking platforms have
been provided by the federal government, universities and other institutions, journals
such as Nature and Science have devoted enormous space to articles, and the New
York Times and other major papers and magazines have devoted acres of newsprint
to uncritical stories and profiles, including the selection of one AIDS scientist as
Time's Man of the Year.
At present, conventional AIDS scientists are highly respected and well
endowed. To expect them to welcome review and demolition of their reigning
hypothesis is unrealistic. They have no practical alternative to resistance if they are
to keep their perks.
Thinking for oneself
Beyond aging, there are undoubtedly the same range of human weaknesses
among scientists as in any other group. Sheer intellectual laziness is surely one of
them. "Our minds are lazier than our bodies," as La Rochefoucauld remarked.
Even among experts, it is often not too hard to see that the sheer boredom and
discomfort of dutifully considering skeptical counter arguments motivates prejudice
against the dissenters' case.
I interpret this as partly the disinclination to think hard, which in my
experience occurs as often among scientists as in the general public. Thoughtfulness
seems to me to be an individual genetic trait. One indication may be that Ritalin, a
drug prescribed for overexcitable children in American schools, is believed by some
to enhance reasoning power among normal adults. But daily life on its own shows
us that while some people actively like to think, others avoid the effort if they can.
Surely La Rochefoucald is right. Most people do not like to think very hard.
In fact, despite the nature of their vocation, I believe that many scientists do not.
The easiest way of avoiding thought is, of course, to subscribe to the accepted
wisdom. As indicated, I find that in AIDS scientists, doctors and health workers
question received wisdom far less than one would expect. If generally true, this is
unfortunate. Science and medicine are essentially exploratory activities and they
should attract people who have the gene for questioning what they are told, and
what they 'know'. As anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss put it, "the scientific mind
does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right questions."
Of course, everyone in this audience is a thinker, otherwise he or she would
not be here at this meeting! Paradoxically, however, in gathering here we
ourselves have to contend with the same human disturbances to effective thinking
that interfere with the clear reception of dissenting reviews in science.
For example, the effect of proximity. In this meeting we will tend to confirm
our ideas as we meet and like others who share them. This herd instinct is
The Scorn of Heretics 28 Anthony F. Liversidge
Conference on Science and Democracy Naples, April 2001/NYC 2002
independent of the sense or lack of it of the ideas. Here is a simple, but surely
profoundly important mechanism. Humans need shared assumptions to consort
and converse when they meet, so they instinctively subscribe to any shared idea
they can to get along with others. The repeated mutual acknowledgement will
have another effect. Psychologists and marketers confirm that people tend to like
what is familiar, whatever the stimulus—whether words, melody or brand name.
The more often concepts are seen or heard, the more they become‘ family’.
Paradigms in science are reinforced by repeated meetings and discussion among
peers where they are the fundamental premise.
Large scientific meetings are thus a big factor in inducing conformity, I am
sure. A richly funded paradigm will engender many conferences and seminars that
bond participants in mutual ideology in the same way as political rallies. The
assemblies in huge auditoria that have characterized AIDS conferences over the last
decade have boasted trappings that remind one of the hysterical rabble rousing of
Nazi Germany—vast stages, spotlit speakers, loud microphones, giant screens with
graphs and slides projected too rapidly for critical inspection. In smaller AIDS
seminars, the hypnotic effect may be weaker, but there is the same paralyzing effect
on independent thought, since the paradigm is ever present as an unexamined
premise.
These means of inducing conformist beliefs are straight from a textbook of
social psychology. Research in that field tells us that when people do not have
enough information to form a judgement, they are very influenced into going along
with the group which provides the information they don't have. Only if we are
convinced that we are more knowledgeable than the group will we be likely to flout
their judgement. Even then, in matters of expertise the pressure to conform is
great. We may conform even though we believe we are right, for fear of ridicule.44
Another danger is "the lynch mob mentality" that one can see aroused in the
US by 'whistleblowers', people who alert the authorities to illegal activity in their
own organization. Whistleblowing is generally punished by group rejection in
America, for instance, even though nominally and financially backed by the federal
government with awards. Even whistleblowers who are completely vindicated as
be motivated more by the religious impulse than the scientific one. As a description
of the external world, religious belief can never be scientific. Its very nature is
superstitious, involving a faith in supernatural reality beyond any proof by practical
investigation. Not to be too reductionist about it, but the practice of science is like
the law. It asks, Where is the proof? or at least, Where is the evidence? This is the
question that religious faith survives and flourishes by proudly ignoring.
As long as one is playing the role of professional scientist, religious beliefs
which concern external reality must be rigorously excluded from the mind, even as
one explores what evidence there may be, if any, for a spiritual plane. Certainly the
religious impulse must be prevented from making a religion out of science, and a
God out of a paradigm!
To achieve this, perhaps we need a more scientific and less excessively polite
view of religious fantasy among scientists. Many scientists are understandably
reluctant to confront and rebut the claims of established religion to miracles and
other influences on the material world. Yet they would not hesitate to challenge or
at least examine very closely any secular claims to astrology, dowsing, reincarnation,
Feng Shi, UFO visitations, alien abductions, or ghosts. Scientific assessment of the
evidence for any factual claim must be impartial if it is to be of professional value.
0 After all, from a properly scientific point of view the factual claims of
traditional Western religions or any others are no more likely than the claims of
astrology or any other pseudo-science. As a physicist pointed out recently,
"In December of each year, nearly a billion Christians around the world
celebrate the birth of a Jewish charismatic leader whom they credit
with, among other things, walking on water and turning it into wine,
creating bread and fish out of nothing, and bringing dead people back
to life. Furthermore, he himself was supposedly born from a virgin and
came back to life three days after being executed. The sole evidence for
any of these wondrous events is found in a single book, written
decades after this leader's death by his followers, who were promoting
him as divine. This same book also describes such things as a speaking
bush, the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, and a person being turned
into salt." 53
So I think we have to disagree with Pollack. We might have a sincere respect
for religious belief for its moral influence and spiritual uplift, but we must recognize
that it corrupts science insofar as it encourages the adoption of belief without
evidence. As Huxley stated, "science commits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Professional scientists must exorcise the religious impulse in their work, just as they
banish any other kind of psychological bias. No laboratory can be housed in a
church. Belief in the supernatural conflicts with the rationality and logic of
naturalism.
The yearning of Pollack for the spiritual comfort of religion, and for its
emotional and moral content, is understandable and even admirable in human terms,
but it does not imply the external existence of any kind of God. To a scientist qua
scientist, the texts of religion must remain moral metaphor, reflecting internal truths.
What I am saying is only that the religious impulse has nothing to contribute
to science except confusion. I am not saying that religion has nothing to contribute
to our lives, of course, or indeed, that science has nothing to contribute to religion.
As a matter of fact, Einstein also said that “religion without science is blind."
Science might very well cleanse religion of the more irrational dogma, rituals and
beliefs that constrain adherents or excites prejudice and violence, and liberate the
human spirit to find genuinely transcendent emotion and moral inspiration.
Science may even already have illuminated the source of religious revelation
of the experiential kind. "In all organized religions I am aware of," writes Pollack,
"revelation takes the form of a sense of being overwhelmed by sheer feeling arising
within without reason or cause." 54 As it happens, experiments at Laurentian
University in Ontario have shown that a classic sense of religious revelation can be
produced at will by stimulating a locus in the brain with an electromagnetic pulse. 55
Disappointingly reductionist to many, perhaps, but a new field of ‘neurotheology’ is
exploring such links between feelings of spirituality and prodding the brain.
Mindsets in the brain
If the feeling of religious epiphany is a function of how the brain works,
perhaps rigid opinion has the same source. Experiments which may be even more
pertinent to our topic have been carried out by physicist Allan Snyder in Canberra,
Australia, producing interesting results related to closemindedness.
Snyder, studying the brain patterns of autistic savants, has found that normal
subjects can be induced to think as literally and non-preconceptually as savants by
directing magnetic pulses into their left arterial temporal lobe, paralyzing their
conceptual ability. The objectivity in perception that results is revealed by their
improved drawing of familiar objects, which is no longer interfered with by their
preconceptions.56
This suggests that the unreasonable closemindedness demonstrated by so
many people in scientific debate may on one level simply reflect the active
functioning of their left temporal lobe. To enable us to function in the world,
Snyder now reasons, the lobe engenders preconceptions to map our perceptions.
These pre-concepts must be dismantled or shifted before our understanding can
change. If received wisdom fosters strong presumptions of this kind, this could
cause imperviousness to reasoned argument.
Snyder concludes that we must all try to escape the influence of such
mindsets to achieve useful new and creative perceptions: "Be forewarned of the
blindness and the prejudice that is inseparable from your discipline," he says. 57
The need for skepticism
Whether systemic, social, psychological or religious in nature, or simply
inherent in the way our brains work, then, there is a long list of factors which may
prevent effective review in science from taking place. Yet if the heretic's will to
reform is dissipated, there will be little progress in theory. There are numerous
examples of Nobel prizes won by scientists who initially suffered debilitating scorn
for their revolutionary idea.
As the case of Peter Duesberg shows, even a very well established heretical
reviewer may be dismissed as a crank if he pursues the matter too long without
flinching. But, of course, it is not crankish to try and debate an open scientific issue
to agreement. Similarly, Thabo Mbeki, the South African president who
independently researched the validity of AIDS heresy, is now called "irresponsible"
by the New York Times. But it is not irresponsible for a head of state to demand a
review of a genuine scientific dispute with such enormous economic and health
consequences for the country he leads.
Skepticism in science is indispensable to progress and to correcting errors.
In the debate over evolution, for example, the standard theory is still resisted by
58 ALBERTS, B., BRAY D., LEWIS J., RAFF M., ROBERTS K.,
WATSON J. D., 1994, Molecular Biology of the Cell Third Edition (Garland)
The Scorn of Heretics 37 Anthony F. Liversidge
Conference on Science and Democracy Naples, April 2001/NYC 2002
utility to the religious impulse. Social power consolidates the ruling idea and fosters
an emotional defense of it as group ideology. Supposedly scientific and logical
arguments are adduced in its favor by those under its spell, but the effect is really to
awaken and reinforce blind faith.
Pathbreaking science is a process which is likely to be most successfully
practiced by an individual, much like any other practice of initiative and originality.
Science is an art of asking curious questions, and reevaluating truths, activities which
tend to be dampened and even oppressed by membership of a large group.
Groups and committees can accomplish brilliant engineering and lift men in rockets
to the moon and back, but acting as groups they can't accomplish breakthrough
conceptual science much more effectively than they can compose music or paint a
picture of genius.
Fund a field in science, such as research in AIDS, with billions, and you will
powerfully distort science by enlarging the herd to vast numbers and empowering
the herd instinct accordingly.
So let us promote the individual in science, whether he is an originator or a
dissenter. Madman or genius, if he is talented he is more likely to be the source of
new truth than comfortable conformists who seek to please their peers who control
state funding. Let us also foster the independent investigator in science journalism.
This role has to be filled by the freelancer in a society if big media and their
executives and editors are too much the servants of their business owners. But
science editors could be more imaginative, and courageous.
We need to educate everyone in critical thinking and awareness of the
sociology of large organizations. Editors must recognize and keep the public
informed of the fierce politics of repression, an open secret among scientists. They
must not strangle the free flow of information in debate, which is the lifeblood of
good science as well as the press. Too many leading editors, not only Maddox of
Nature but the editors of the New York Times, Science, The Lancet and New York
Review of Books, have suppressed or curtailed critical responses to pro-HIV claims
in their columns.59
Let us make reviewing a well-financed activity within science today and
protect it from political interference. We must not forget the independent minded
physicist Richard Feynman on the panel of the Challenger investigation, and that he
was crossing the bureaucrats trying to protect the reputation of NASA management
when he publicly placed an piece of the rocket's O ring in a glass of iced water, and
solved the puzzle.
This talk was given at the Conference for Science and Democracy, Institute for
Philosophical Studies, Naples, Italy on April 20, 2001. Rewritten with additions
Wednesday, July 3, 2002.
Copyright Anthony Liversidge 2002 (email [email protected]).