April 20, 2004
A Shield... But Not a Sword... Let's take five with Moira Gunn. This is "Five Minutes."
Hang around lawyers long enough, and you will eventually be told you can't use some salient point you feel particularly close to as an argument. And why? In the law, the point in question can only be used as a shield, but not a sword.
It's one of the few things in law, which seems to explain itself: You can't use this fact to go after the other guy. And if he comes after you, you can use it as a defense. It didn't occur to me until recently that we might borrow this concept to help us when we, as a society, need to turn to science.
Easily a decade ago, I remember witnessing a telecommunications hearing right here in San Francisco down at City Hall. The subject? Public safety concerning all the new wireless transmitters that the cell phone companies proposed hanging all over town. "Trash cans," they were called, as this was about the size and look of the things, and the question was: "Could emissions from these so-called 'trash cans' cause the public harm?"
--
This was a time before everyone and his uncle had a cell phone, so it was all pretty new, and the city had to give its permission to bring these transmitters into the neighborhoods. A Telecommunications Commission had been formed, and it was manned by three of our elected Supervisors, none of whom had run for office on technical prowess.
Employed on behalf of the telecom companies, a nattily-dressed consultant rose to speak. He spent nearly five minutes just reviewing his extensive scientific credentials, and since he'd only been allotted five minutes, we knew he was about to get to the point.
He smoothly intoned, "Now, to the question at hand. I can assure you there is nothing whatsoever in the scientific literature that suggests these boxes cause any harm whatsoever. In fact, I believe so much in the safety of this technology that I would have no problem placing one outside the home of my grandchildren, whom I love dearly."
He smiled broadly, thanked everyone on the commission, and grandly sat back down in the front row.
I, on the other hand, was about to blow a gasket.
--
This wasn't really my issue, but I had passed the time waiting by reading all the statements submitted to the commission, which included an uncontested overview of the available science. This rent-a-scientist was suggesting that the absence of scientific answers could be used as a basis to assert safety.
I fairly shook with protest: Whatever happened to "If we haven't studied it, we don't know?" This was replaced quickly in my mind by framing an offer to install these trash cans on a pole outside his own home, in addition to the homes of each of his incredibly-beloved offspring.
But the point is this: When you hear the words "There is nothing in the scientific literature to suggest," listen carefully. It means just that. The absence of science cannot be re-packaged for use as a sword; it cannot be used to suggest whatever it is we want the answer to be.
To be sure, science can be used as a sword, but only when we have a very complete picture - and not before. The absence of science can only be used as a shield, enabling us as a society to say "No" to the pressures of the powers that be.
I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.
Back to Five Minutes List
