LETTERS: Myth of disinterested science
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Like Lewis Wolpert, I am profoundly sceptical about most claims to paranormal activity ("Hypotheses", Review, 19 May). Unlike him, I am not convinced that normative science is fit to police research in areas outside those it already approves.
He expresses surprise that scientists who have investigated Matthew Manning do not rush into print in the pages of Science or Nature. Has he forgotten the treatment meted out in 1988 to the scientist, Jacques Benveniste, when he published results that seemed to confirm homeopathic theory? The magazine accompanied the article with an editorial claiming that it must be bunkum, then sent the editor, a magician, and a doctor to his laboratory. On the basis of a three-day visit, these "researchers"believed that error had crept into the investigations and published a crushing rebuttal. Scientific research, as Wolpert says, should be "painstaking, slow and difficult". Some chance.
Has he forgotten the results of a study on the Bristol Cancer Help Centre, which concluded that women treated by non-conventional methods were more likely to die than those receiving orthodox treatment? Or the near-silence when the researchers admitted flaws in their methodology? It is sad that so many people swallow the claims of astrologers and the rest, but much sadder that men like Lewis Wolpert swallow the myth of an objective, disinterested and rational pursuit as science.
Dr Denis MacEoin
Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments