Stop the Assault on Truth.

Abstract

I am really unhappy about my behavior in the public arena, because despite being aware of the large-scale species extinction for decades, I have not spoken out. Only once did I mention the fact in a scientific article, because it exemplifies the revolutionary change during biological evolution.1 And I am far from being the only one working in the (life) sciences reluctant to enter public debate. So, what is going on here and what can we do to stop what can only be described as a dereliction of our societal duty? Scientists are, by inclination as well as training, ill-equipped to contribute to ongoing highly charged public discourses, even though it is absolutely crucial that they do so, especially now. Scientists know about the complexity, nuance, and the occasional need for open discussion of ideas outside the mainstream; they are interested in “truth” (they want to understand how things work), and they exchange ideas and facts on the assumption that other people are likewise motivated. In essence, they take good-faith debates for granted. Lastly, they are, or should be, acutely aware that they could be wrong. However—and here we find ourselves ill-equipped—complexity, nuance, and self-doubt do not translate well in contributions to the hourly news cycle, while open discussions lead to platforming of long discredited, zombie ideas that are trotted out again and again because they serve specific political and economic agendas. Probably, our biggest vulnerability is the assumption of good-faith debate. It may be difficult to appreciate but by entering some discussions we become part of the problem. My personal experience in contacts with creationists showed me that you cannot come up with any data that make the slightest impact, while the onlooker gets the impression that “evolution” is still only an idea and not a scientific fact. Here the parallels with climate-change deniers are obvious, in that they do not have to be dishonest (though some are) but nothing will ever change their mind. So, what should we do? State the alarming facts as often as possible and take care that our utterances cannot be misconstrued by media with ulterior motives. Here are a few examples of such facts: Man-made climate change is real and dealing with it is becoming more and more urgent. Smart, scientifically sound (!), solutions are (becoming) available and should be implemented as quickly as possible. See e.g., chapter 8 (“A malleable earth”) in ’t Hooft.2 Humans are responsible for the ongoing sixth mass extinction, the Holocene (or Anthropocene) extinction event.3 Mass extinctions are extremely rare (only 5 in 3.8 billion years; see Raup and Sepkoski4). The specific long-term effects of such an ecological collapse are difficult to predict, but the longer we postpone direct effective action the more dire the consequences for mankind will be. As I write this, the world population, at over 7.7 billion and counting,5 is bigger than ever before. The differences between the poorest and the richest people on Earth have also increased rapidly, while public domain initiatives to halt, let alone reverse, both increases are undermined by some of the zombie ideas I mentioned earlier. Now, I suspect that many readers will feel this editorial to be inappropriate for a scientific journal (ironically, reflecting my own previous inclination to only “sneak in” a reference to mass extinction caused by humanity) but they might reconsider in light of the fact that the activists who are determined to do something about these developments need all the support they can get. Unbelievably, the (very) young people campaigning against ecological collapse (the Extinction Rebellion) and climate change (“School strike for the climate”) are sometimes ridiculed and treated with contempt. Protesting against an extinction of incredible proportions gets you labeled as belonging to the “Extinction Rebellion eco-mob”, while the 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who started the school strike—and in doing so laid the groundwork for a powerful climate movement—is not engaged in argument but criticized with regard to her background and personality.6 Thus, the least we can do is to stress again and again that the scientific facts are on the side of the activists, and that there remains less and less time to confront the urgent challenges humanity faces. Scientists, speak up, and, equally importantly, engage with activists to convert protest into sound and stable solutions!