SGU skepticism

I love The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, the podcast by the New England Skeptical Society. I've listened to it every week for over 2 years. It is a great way to keep up on the latest science and pseudoscience, and it is entertaining as well.

I do have one problem with it however. This is just a friendly criticism. It in no way takes away from the enjoyment of the podcast. There will be things to disagree with in any program. It doesn't succeed if it doesn't make us think and occasionally challenge it. My particular criticism is also found in many other skeptical and pro science groups.

My most common problem with SGU is the unfounded technological optimism. In the SGU universe, science and technology can fix anything. The future is bright. All of our problems can be solved by science. I want to be fair. They do sometimes inject some caution. Steve Novella is more likely to hold back on the implications while his brother Bob is most likely to see nothing but potential.

One podcast in which this was seen was an interview with someone trying to create immortality. He believes that all of the things that kill us can be dealt with by medical science. There was very little skepticism of the claims, or acknowledgment of the limits we have seen.

I was a kid when Nixon announced the war on cancer. I read about how terrible cancer was and thought that at least it will be cured by the time I get old enough to get it. In fact, cancer is as much of a killer now as before. We often hear about the latest possible cure for cancer. Maybe something worked great in mice. The translation to human therapy is always messier. We get tiny increments. The same could be said about cures for malaria or the common cold.

The same could be said about gene therapy. Twenty years ago there was talk of curing numerous illnesses and making designer humans. Today there is still no unequivocal success with gene therapy. That doesn't mean we wont' succeed in some cases (and fail in others). But biological systems are complicated. Any manipulation alters the whole system, and simple extrapolations almost never work with living things.

The hope of medical immortality ignores all of this. Even something as long established as organ transplants have complications and limitations as serious today as decades ago.

We see this in the popular press as well. Stem cells have tremendous potential. But a reader of the popular press might believe that breakthroughs are only years away. The reality is probably more like decades, and it will work with some diseases and not others, and there will be complications and limits on its success.

Other places of misplaced optimism in the SGU are space travel and nanotechnology. The reality of space travel should give anyone with visions of a science fiction future pause. We haven't been back to the moon in 35 years. The energy and resources for any extended stay in space are tremendous. I do not know if we will ever be able to overcome them. Certainly, energy is a major limit. We have yet to find a good source of energy without major economic and ecological problems. Even wind energy affects birds and bats. Anyone with a skeptical background should know that hopes for limitless energy are almost always unfounded.

I believe science can solve many problems. But it also has limits. The 20th century should show us the limits of technology, and the unexpected side effects of it. We should pursue all of the leads we have, and find ways to make the world better. But I would encourage people not to exaggerate the benefits or ignore the limitations. We have to be skeptical of science as well as pseudoscience.