William Katz: Urgent Agenda
|
||
|
LONGEVITY Speaking of The Times, the paper carries a provocative story today that raises questions about the notion, widely accepted in medicine, that lowering certain kinds of cholesterol helps guard against heart attacks. As the story puts it, this belief is so widespread among physicians that it affects the approval process for new drugs. Alex Berenson writes:
Now the doubters are being heard. Kind of makes us wonder, doesn't it, about the "certainties" of science. Al Gore, highest prophet of the new church of global warming, might even read the piece and start thinking, a difficult process that often results in frightening things, and even career changes. When I was a first-year student at the University of Chicago, we had to take a course called National Science I, or PhySci I. Most students hated it. We spent a good chunk of the year studying scientific theories, accepted in their time, that turned out to be wrong. I once had the gall to ask the instructor, Robert Long, why we studied incorrect theories. His answer has stayed with me. We do it, he said, to understand the way science progresses. It makes mistakes. It has fads and trends. Not every scientist fully understands what he or she is doing. Next time you buy a half gallon of ice cream ("vanilla swirl to cool the world") to help fight global warming, think about Long's answer. Posted on January 17, 2008.
|
|