Nature and role of science relative to RH bill

Most published commentaries against the Reproductive Health bill, including some reactions to my posted comments in websites and blogs last Aug. 17 (“More on the RH bill: a definition of life”), show poor public understanding of science. I thought of sharing a summary of my replies to some of them, in particular, about the nature of science.

The objectives of science, as I learned, are not to find the truth. They are aimed to understand nature and the universe, so that researchers and the government can plan and act for the people’s well-being. Many studies are meant to support scientific consensus, as in evolution and climate change. Hence, these are factual conclusions—supported by valid data. They are not permanent truth; they can be changed by more studies. This is the progressive nature of science.

Such nature of science explains why most harmful predictions by scientists—like those of Paul Ehrlich’s  “Population Bomb” (1968) and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster (1986)—have largely failed. Continued research stopped the serious threats. The same corrective actions of science can upset unexpected results—this is the serendipitous nature of scientific research. The discovery of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) for saving lives from malaria had unexpected bad effects on the ecosystems. Both results of science helped policy decisions—on DDT’s medical use and its subsequent worldwide ban.

The threats of demographic winter (or decreased human population), peddled by nonscientists who are against the RH bill, have no scientific basis. I have yet to see properly published studies—the Social Citation Index (SCI)—with “demographic winter” in the article title. You can also search (with Advanced Google Scholar) for such titles (that is, with demographic winter) of valid studies—Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)—in social sciences, and you will hardly find any. Such information should guide politicians in making useful decisions.

Scientists do not debate religious views. They try to explain science. “Science and religion are different ways of understanding. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future.”

 —FLOR LACANILAO,

retired professor of marine science,

University of the Philippines Diliman