A few days ago I wrote that the new populism was an anti-expert phenomenon that discounted, often even disparaged, the skills of negotiation and compromise in politics. As it turns out, the new populism is also deeply anti-scientific, given that it appears to have just as little comprehension of the logic involved in the scientific research enterprise. I’m speaking in particular of the practice of attempting to discredit a study by claiming that the researchers had a financial conflict of interest. This assertion is thrown around whenever a piece of research comes out with a conclusion that a given side doesn’t like. And the grassroots on both left and right do it.
On the right, this is prominently shown in the climate change denial crowd. Even on FOX News, hardly a grassroots-based source, climatology studies that show warming and indicate a very high probability of its being due to human activity are dismissed on the grounds that “those scientists get grant money that’s contingent on them coming to that conclusion.” The tea party foot soldiers (or keyboard warriors, more typically) repeat this claim ad nauseam. On the left, this behavior is most commonly found among the anti-big-agriculture crowd. A study comes out that finds that a dietary bogeyman of the left really isn’t bad? Well, the study must have been influenced by Big Ag, so therefore it can be dismissed among the faithful without a second thought.
The term “conflict of interest” is thrown at scientists by these people, and they fail to realize (or more probably, simply don’t believe) that even if a researcher was receiving funding from a source that has an interest in the research conclusions, that does not discredit the research. In fact, you can’t find any scientist anywhere who doesn’t have a “conflict of interest” of some variety. In most sciences, positive findings (in science, this means finding a real effect instead of failing to do so) are a lot more likely to be published than null findings. Scientists therefore have a personal interest in seeing positive results. Scientists can also have a personal conflict of interest that is ideological rather than financial. There is no such thing as a truly detached, objective human being, and the political populist squawking about “conflicts of interest” in science amounts to little more than the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
What matters for assessing the credibility of research are the methodology of the research and whether the study can be replicated. Does it “look bad” for, say, the corn industry to contribute funding to research indicating that high-fructose corn syrup isn’t harmful in moderation? Well, yeah, it does. But “how it looks” means NOTHING in the scientific method. If there is a problem in the way that the study was done, then call that out. If there isn’t an obvious problem but the study cannot be replicated by other researchers, then it might be time to question whether the claimed methodology was the actual one. But in the absence of these other issues with the research, going after the people who paid for the study doesn’t prove a thing about its validity.
As an example, a couple of years ago, a right-wing think tank funded a sociologist to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct a survey into the personal outcomes of adult children who had been raised by various types of families. The study was, for a little while, used in court cases to support denying marriage to gay couples. The claim made was that people who grew up in these households had poor life outcomes in the surveyed areas. Naturally, there was pushback against this study, due to the political nature of its topic. The type of pushback that ultimately went nowhere (and rightly so) was that which was based on attacking the funding source and asserting “conflict of interest.” The pushback that was successful was to go after the methodology of the study. As it turned out, the people that the researcher and his allies were claiming had been “raised by gay couples” were almost entirely from broken homes in which one parent was gay but was originally in a doomed marriage with an opposite-sex person. The real takeaway from the study was that gay people shouldn’t marry straight people and definitely shouldn’t have kids with them, because—no particular surprise—kids from broken homes tended to have more issues than kids who grew up in happy families. Making attacks on the source of the funding didn’t discredit the conclusions that were being bandied about; going after the methodology and finding that it did not support the claimed conclusions was what did the trick. (And, as a footnote, some ideologues among the critics did not at all like that the more scientifically minded critics urged them to knock it off with the irrelevant attacks on the funder and focus on methodological problems. This is another anecdote in support of my conviction that there is a strongly anti-scientific strain among modern-day grassroots political activists.)
The final problem with ideologues claiming “conflict of interest = discredited study” is this: It is an implicit allegation that the scientists involved in the work committed research fraud to please their funders. This is an incredibly serious allegation to make, the gravity of which these ideologues apparently have not a clue. Deliberate research fraud is a permanent career-ender in science. The world of scientific peer review is based on an honor system that what the researchers claimed they did is what they actually did. (Replication of studies bolsters the system, but again, there is a preference for positive original research, so a lot of replication studies don’t get published. There is awareness of this problem in the scientific community and steps are being taken to address it.) If a person wants to claim that a scientist committed research fraud, this claim is so serious that the claimant had better have proof of it. And yet, political activists with a definite conflict of interest (the desire to see certain results so that they are not disturbed in their ideological convictions) toss it around implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) without the slightest regard for what they are saying.
The net result of this ignorant, slanderous, conspiracy-theorist, and scientifically irrelevant line of attack has been an undermining of the trust in certain areas of science, depending on where a person falls on the political spectrum. In other words, they’ve touched science and managed to poison it too in the public mind. So yes, between the bad logic and a destructive mode of skepticism that completely undermines the foundation of the scientific method, I think I am entirely justified in saying that there is an anti-scientific current running through the new populism.