“Scientific outreach has been almost a collaborator of the pharmaceutical industry as a puppet”
“Scientific outreach has been almost a collaborator of the pharmaceutical industry as a puppet”
When the project of the Pamplona Planetarium arose, I was researching the active fields of stars at the Complutense University of Madrid. Like spots in the sun, but in other stars. And one day, while eating with my friends, we saw an ad in the newspaper: “We need director for the Planetarium of Pamplona” as well.
It had to be a very large planetarium, but in Navarre, where it had no astronomical tradition. Society saw it as an imagined barbarity for politicians. The project had the whole appearance of being a huge lump. But very attractive, as it was born to spread astronomy and science. I really liked it.
When we started working on what is now the Association for the Impulse of Critical Thought, any absurd explanation came to the newspapers: that the brain had capabilities on matter, unknown flying objects, enchanted places that recorded the voices of the dead… Now, society has begun to science has to talk. He is seeing it, for example, in the phenomenon of homeopathy that has occurred in the last two years. It has suffered a spectacular fall. No one criticized before. If he talked to a scientist or doctor, they said: “No, no, I’m not going to get into that. I will only do my job.”
Look, there are things that take away time and money, but there are others that can also lose their lives. For example, all pseudosciences related to medicine: healers and, in a clumsy way, so-called alternative medicine. I think there is the hardest field. In these years we are seeing the parallel phenomenon that is occurring in the face of the most serious diseases. Especially in cancer.
There is bioneuroemotion, the new Germanic medicine... all these almost spiritual therapies, which say that the disease, and specifically cancer, is not a consequence of genes and lifestyle, but of the psychological and psychosocial problems that surround it. “Your attitude is negative and that’s what causes you cancer.” It’s like the spells of before, “they’ve made you the eye,” but turned into a therapy that brings you a fortune.
There is something that I am very angry about: there is a sector that identifies with the ecological and natural life, socially alternative, linked to the left, that has fallen into the clutches of people talking about this type of scrub. He who has approached the most absurd spiritualism. There are talks about how to focus mental energy, chi... There is talk of cosmic energies and there is no.
Yes, of course. I give him reason. Now we are understanding some things that were despised a few years ago. For example, environmental impact. We advanced a lot. But the important thing is that there is a way of investigation, and that is precisely what we have to defend.
Look at the awareness-raising movement that has taken place over the past 30 years in favor of evidence-based medicine. There are many things that are being routinely applied to medicine that have not been well evaluated; let's see which alternative therapies can work. Does acupuncture work? Well, let's do studies and then we'll get a scientific consensus, as happened with climate change. Now no one questions it. What happens is that when these data are published, they are usually not favorable to acupuncture or holistic or energy medicines.
Science is idealized. “Science is what will save us all,” so what they’re saying is “I’m not too worried.” Some believe it will be the panacea and others have more weight fear and suspicion. But all from a very idealized perspective.
The truth is that we have to be very critical of science. Science is a big business whose example is the pharmacist. It is true that scientific criticism in general and the dissemination of science in particular has not been critical of that great pattern, the pharmaceutical industry and the drugs it has sold to us. He has crouched his head and has been almost a collaborator, like a puppet, in the leeks that were getting us.
The way is denunciation. For example, when doing a clinical research on drugs or other molecules, why don't they become public? We want to know all the research, not only those published at the end, but the reason for a suspended investigation. Science is very guilty.
In fact, we are discarding a basic principle of science: transparency. That is, knowledge should be free, free and universal access. We will never be able to patent genes, do opaque research… We have yielded and it has been a huge mistake. Last year, the greatest scientific advance in the biological sciences has been the creation of a pre-publication system in which the publications will be published soon freely and free of charge. That is fundamental.
Of course, we have heard this attitude many times from researchers: “Why do you push the end? We scientists know that!” That's what you can criticize, how not! How will nuclear development that some countries have had, for example, not be criticized? The use of electric companies has been sought since the beginning. When science and social issues are mixed I realize that the communication of science has been very scarce, due to that impunity.
Here a special phenomenon occurs. As man explaining in the topic of women, where man “has to explain it”, there is also science explaining: “No, sorry, I am a scientist. I master quantum physics and I will explain to you, that poor, whatever you want.” I think that changes, but much of the disclosure has been like that.
We have to be critical of science. The more scientists are fighting, in that public debate, defending what needs to be defended and attacking others, the better. We should have a commitment.
Because the XXI. In the 20th century, science can be so irresponsible to establish something and discover that within a hundred years we have amazed the world? By the time we realize it will be irreparable. I think this attitude has not changed too much. That is the main criticism I make of the world of science. It continues to advance by pure interest, both by interest in knowing, by economic interest, and by interest in controlling, without analyzing the conclusions well.
In some areas we progress but in others it is very slow. One of them is the energy field, in which I ask myself: “Hey, can scientific research not provide an effective solution to this situation where renewable energies are more efficient than fossil coal itself in costs/benefits?
Yes, I started doing something, especially because there was nothing. I believe that in laboratories it is necessary to vindicate sexual diversity so that the path of normalization is given. It is surprising that in the world of science there is no collective of gay, lesbian and transgender scientists; that everyone is still in the closet. In science there is a hidden homophobia.
Therefore, in the blog emerge scientific characters who have had to hide their sexual condition. The clearest example is that of mathematician Alan Turin: Despite being a hero of World War II, he suffered serious problems because of his homosexuality, to the point of forcing him to castrate chemically... Or neuroscientist Ben Barres, transsexual. When he made the gender transition, another scientist said: “Look, he’s better scientist than his sister.”
When I explained my intention to my friends, they told me: “I don’t see that necessary. I don’t know how it will affect the scientific production with whom it lies.” In their day it was also said that women were not going to contribute to the research content as women. I don't know, but it is true that in modern times the first neuroscientist who has been concerned about investigating sexual diversity in the brain has been homosexual. I'm sure that wasn't going to be done by a heterosexual.
Buletina
Bidali zure helbide elektronikoa eta jaso asteroko buletina zure sarrera-ontzian