At the alters of science, economics and relative morality

Are our cell phones really safe, what about GE foods or new drugs?
The TV reported a court case involving the claimed harm from electromagnetic radiation that was lost on the grounds that it had not been conclusively proven that the specific radiation caused the illness.

Now I find this very interesting. It is of course a product of our enlightened age, where scientific proof is the new God and is the final arbiter on all things. As a society we have accepted this and generally accept it. In doing so have we created the age of pseudo-informed gullibility?

From a public policy perspective seeking conclusive evidence before acting is in my view irresponsible. In a community driven by moral values rather than economic incentives perhaps we could hope for better.


While we now accept that smoking causes cancer it is not understood why in some cases it does not. Indeed the failure of smoking to deliver cancer with scientific repeatability bogged the smoking debate down for years and to some extent still does. Do we have to wait for science stamp of approval before we believe anything?

Of course the true rationalist may argue, for instance, that a “safe” drug later shown to harmful was never proven safe. If causality between cell phone use and neurological damage is eventually established (perhaps at least as well as the smoking – cancer link) then they might argue that the scientists had done a good job in establishing the link and were wise to have been initially cautious, to await proof – they could have been wrong otherwise.

Wrong in what way – scientifically of course, to question the actual morality may require reference to an absolute. After all, why would a company knowingly market a product that may kill off its customers in 10 years – surely the morality of economics is enough to regulate conduct. Why give home loans to people who may not be able to repay them? But wait – it works, the market is correcting itself and all is well, none have been harmed (well not the ones that matter!). Why would a drug company market a diabetes drug that increased the risk of heart attack by 43% - surely there is no economic or moral gain in placing your customers at risk? … but they do have to wait until the risk is conclusively proven.

There are two sides to the proof problem in public health.
First is that we require “proof” when common sense should prevail. Would you sleep under EHV powerlines by choice, or that phone ‘attached’ to your ear all day or continue to take that medication? At some point acting morally to reduce the risk has to be recognised as the preferred option. But it will require a change in the public mindset, a turning away from the God of conclusive proof.

Second in our free market driven world of contestability most research is funded, directly or indirectly, by corporates with a vested interest. That’s good right? They will want to know their products are safe …. Perhaps this provides the reason for the paucity of well funded research in many of the areas of public health – of course if there was a possible pill to counteract the effects of electromagnetic radiation then the science would be there.

Perhaps I have grown cynical? But, while as a society we continue to not believe it because science says it can’t be proven - indeed the very oxygen of atheism – we place ourselves knowingly but unverifiably at risk. While we continue to worship at the alters of science, economics and relative morality perhaps we gain an insight into what lies behind the biblical lesson of the sins of one generation being visited on the next.

Is there a better way?

Hamba kahle - peace