Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.
He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.
This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.
I look forward to watching this soon.
Comment - Sir Paul Nurse's big boo boo
This looks very interesting watching now
I agree with practically everything he said, but I felt like he didn't really bring anything new to the table. It was like he was throwing softballs at both the opposition and at scientists for the entire hour. Good documentary, as far as an introduction to climate science goes, but not enough for me to recommend it to others.
I like your expression 'throwing softballs at both' and I think you are right.
Sir Paul is an Atheist and Nobel prize winning scientist but he comes across as a wimp in my opinion.
I had hoped he would have mentioned that quite often scientists act like human beings... they make mistakes, some falsify data, and sometimes, they're just wrong...think thalidomide, lobotomies, hydrogen blimps [in retrospect, WTF], nuclear bombs, Chernobyl, industrial pollution, HFCS, butter yellow, leaded gasoline, leaded paint, etc. and that real world conditions rarely, if ever, look like laboratory conditions.
The ivory tower of academia pushes us out of the darkness of ignorance, and into the bright glow of enlightenment. But there are missteps, mistakes, failures and tragedies along the way. It is hypocritical and extremely arrogant of the scientific community to expect blind obedience from the world. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and when that evidence is lacking, trying to replace it with 'consensus' only works with the 'faithful'.
Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and when that evidence is lacking, trying to replace it with 'consensus' only works with the 'faithful'.
Problem with that is, in this case the "extreme claim" involves catastrophic damage.
A lot of science denial seems to come from people not liking what the science says.
And addressing energy issues, which we need to do anyway, also does a lot to address global warming.