July 5, 2002 OCA comment on the misuse of the term "science" You have probably heard one of these phrases or something similar: "The science says irradiated food is safe." "Where's your science to show that irradiation is harmful?" "You don't have any science to prove your point." OCA wants to point out that these phrases use the word "science" inappropriately. The words "existing scientific evidence" should be used instead. "The existing scientific evidence says irradiated food is safe." "Where's the existing scientific evidence to show that irradiation is harmful?" "You don't have any existing scientific evidence to prove your point." You can see how the first set of phrases is intimidating and the second set of phrases is not intimidating. For that reason - to intimidate us from arguing against them - our opponents use the term "science" to mean "existing scientific evidence." DON'T BE FOOLED OR INTIMIDATED. When you hear one of the first set of phrases, translate it in your mind. ALWAYS ANSWER USING "the existing scientific evidence." It's accurate, and it will position you to make the following arguments: - public policy positions are not made on the basis of "science", any more than they are made on the basis of "geography" or "English composition." They are made on the basis of existing scientific evidence. - in the case of many treatments applied to food, such as irradiation, genetic modification and many agrochemicals, existing scientific evidence is inadequate to prove safety. - the body of existing scientific evidence on a topic is always changing. - therefore, public policies must be made on the assumption that new evidence from new scientific studies might contradict the existing scientific evidence. In other words, public policies should be "precautionary" and take these possible changes into account. This precautionary attitude is summed up in the physician's credo, "First, do no harm." "EXISTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE". It's the key to an effective argument.