Has this ever happened before?

[Pete Harcoff]

In lieu of both the global warming and c/e debates, I was wondering:

Has there ever been a time in history when the vast scientific majority agreed on a particular conclusion about something and was opposed primarily by political/grassroots opposition, and it turned out the latter group was correct?

I've tried to come up with an example, but am drawing a blank.

 

[jayem]

In lieu of both the global warming and c/e debates, I was wondering:

Has there ever been a time in history when the vast scientific majority agreed on a particular conclusion about something and was opposed primarily by political/grassroots opposition, and it turned out the latter group was correct?

I've tried to come up with an example, but am drawing a blank.

I can't think of any either. There are numerous examples where the conventional scientific wisdom regarding some topic was wrong, but the correction always came from other scientists.

There have been some medical advances that were adapted from traditional or folk practices. Malaria was once thought to be caused by breathing bad air (hence the name.) Established medicine of the day treated it with blood-letting, cupping, and other such practices. But it was observed back in the 1600s that indigenous peoples in South America chewed cinchona bark with good results. This was how quinine was discovered. So here's a case where the wisdom of the common people was superior to that of the scientific establishment.

 

[tansy]

There have been some medical advances that were adapted from traditional or folk practices. Malaria was once thought to be caused by breathing bad air (hence the name.) Established medicine of the day treated it with blood-letting, cupping, and other such practices. But it was observed back in the 1600s that indigenous peoples in South America chewed cinchona bark with good results. This was how quinine was discovered. So here's a case where the wisdom of the common people was superior to that of the scientific establishment.

Yes, and apparently I think they are discovering there is at least a grain of truth in some old wive's tales. (can't remember where I read that..it was ages ago)

 

[AV1611VET]

In lieu of both the global warming and c/e debates, I was wondering:

Has there ever been a time in history when the vast scientific majority agreed on a particular conclusion about something and was opposed primarily by political/grassroots opposition, and it turned out the latter group was correct?

I've tried to come up with an example, but am drawing a blank.

Thalidomide --- it was not accepted in the United States.

 

[Chesterton]

In lieu of both the global warming and c/e debates, I was wondering:

Has there ever been a time in history when the vast scientific majority agreed on a particular conclusion about something and was opposed primarily by political/grassroots opposition, and it turned out the latter group was correct?

I've tried to come up with an example, but am drawing a blank.

Maybe cocaine and heroin use in the 19th century? I think the scientific consensus was that these were wonder drugs and cure-alls, but the regular folks recognized they were not all they were cracked up to be.

 

[jayem]

Thalidomide --- it was not accepted in the United States.

But concerns about Thalidomide didn't come from the general public. The problems were recognized by medical practitioners. The first reports were by an alert Australian OB-GYN and a German pediatrician. And it was the effort of FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Kelsey, who was aware of these reports of birth defects from overseas, that prevented widespread use of Thalidomide in the US. She's an American hero.


Frances Oldham Kelsey Biography (1914-)

 

[Beechwell]

Thalidomide --- it was not accepted in the United States.

Well, the scientists promoting Thalidomine weren't exactly wrong. The thing does have the expected medical function.
They just missed (or maybe ignored) another - undesirable - function of it.

It's not like they were wrong about it, but that they didn't know the whole truth. And that I would say is quite frequent in scientific research.
In regards to global warming, noone understands the way climate works completely, and noone can make completely accurate predictions about it. But we can make good educated guesses ("guess" is not really the right word, but I can't think of another one).

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well, the scientists promoting Thalidomine weren't exactly wrong. The thing does have the expected medical function.
They just missed (or maybe ignored) another - undesirable - function of it.

It's not like they were wrong about it, but that they didn't know the whole truth. And that I would say is quite frequent in scientific research.
In regards to global warming, noone understands the way climate works completely, and noone can make completely accurate predictions about it. But we can make good educated guesses ("guess" is not really the right word, but I can't think of another one).

"Estimations" might be a better word.

 

[dewaddict84]

Maybe cocaine and heroin use in the 19th century? I think the scientific consensus was that these were wonder drugs and cure-alls, but the regular folks recognized they were not all they were cracked up to be.

HAHAHAHAHA! Now THAT'S funny!

And I think you're right. Cocaine was brought over as a medicine, highly marketed as a cure for... whatever ailed you, as was the case with most "medicines" of the time. After it became popular and prevalent, the downsides became apparent and it was banned by people that certainly weren't doctors or scientists. They even mis-labeled it as a narcotic.

But the problem with finding examples of this is that "grassroots" and "non-scientific" and "political" are really nebulous ideas that overlap a lot and are hard to classify. You could say anything is political to an extent, and anyone can be a scientist.

 

[Cabal]

At the same time, the public backlash against pretty much any social drug that wasn't tobacco and alcohol was too much for many of the substances now controlled.

However, some progress is being made.

*necks a glass of absinthe*

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Well, the scientists promoting Thalidomine weren't exactly wrong. The thing does have the expected medical function.
They just missed (or maybe ignored) another - undesirable - function of it.

It's not like they were wrong about it, but that they didn't know the whole truth. And that I would say is quite frequent in scientific research.
In regards to global warming, noone understands the way climate works completely, and noone can make completely accurate predictions about it. But we can make good educated guesses ("guess" is not really the right word, but I can't think of another one).

Actually thalidomide does exactly what it was supposed to, and didn't have the undesireable side-effects.

It is just that production makes the desired molecule as well as a mirror-image copy.

It is the mirror-image copy that causes the problems.

So, basically, it was a manufacturing problem....

 

[Maxwell511]

Has there ever been a time in history when the vast scientific majority agreed on a particular conclusion about something and was opposed primarily by political/grassroots opposition, and it turned out the latter group was correct?

If you rephrase the question as "when the vast scientific/political majority agreed on a particular conclusion about something and was opposed primarily by grassroots opposition, and it turned out the latter group was correct?"...

then yes. One example is Boltzmann.

In answer to your actual question...I am going to say Eugenics which got politically out of favour because of the Nazis but eventually turned out to be wrong anyway.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Has there ever been a time in history when the vast scientific majority agreed on a particular conclusion about something and was opposed primarily by political/grassroots opposition, and it turned out the latter group was correct?

D.D.T.

"Quite often in this field [of medicine] politics comes first and science second. We must take a position based upon the science and the data." -- Arata Kochi, physician, September 15th 2006

 

[jayem]

D.D.T.

Strictly speaking, the concerns about DDT initially came from zoologists. Ornithologists had written articles in the mid-40s about deleterious effects of DDT on birds. And Rachel Carson herself was a professional wildlife biologist. She was the publications director for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. No doubt, public concern about DDT was a major factor in banning it's use, but the public's awareness of the problem was raised by professionals in the field.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Strictly speaking, the concerns about DDT initially came from zoologists. Ornithologists had written articles in the mid-40s about deleterious effects of DDT on birds. And Rachel Carson herself was a professional wildlife biologist. She was the publications director for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. No doubt, public concern about DDT was a major factor in banning it's use, but the public's awareness of the problem was raised by professionals in the field.

Exactly.

The myths about D.D.T. were proclaimed by ignorant professionals.

Today scientists have seen the light and D.D.T. is used to fight malaria and saves the lives of millions of children.

 

[jayem]

Exactly.

The myths about D.D.T. were proclaimed by ignorant professionals.

Today scientists have seen the light and D.D.T. is used to fight malaria and saves the lives of millions of children.

We're kind of getting off topic here. But the toxicity of DDT is not a myth. It is a well-documented reproductive toxin for birds when it accumulates to certain levels in their bodies. As it did in raptors such as bald eagles. The recovery of the eagle population from near extinction is due more than anything else to the banning of DDT. It's also highly toxic to some crustaceans and fish. Your statement about it's usefulness for mosquito control doesn't negate the fact that it is undeniably toxic to wildlife. (And if it must be used today, WHO guidlines require that it only be sprayed indoors, to minimize migration into the wild food chain.)

 

[Promethean]

But it was observed back in the 1600s that indigenous peoples in South America chewed cinchona bark with good results. This was how quinine was discovered. So here's a case where the wisdom of the common people was superior to that of the scientific establishment.

To be accurate in the 1600s the physical sciences were in their infancy and there was no medical science to speak of.

 

[Wildcat48]

We're kind of getting off topic here. But the toxicity of DDT is not a myth. It is a well-documented reproductive toxin for birds when it accumulates to certain levels in their bodies. As it did in raptors such as bald eagles. The recovery of the eagle population from near extinction is due more than anything else to the banning of DDT. It's also highly toxic to some crustaceans and fish. Your statement about it's usefulness for mosquito control doesn't negate the fact that it is undeniably toxic to wildlife. (And if it must be used today, WHO guidlines require that it only be sprayed indoors, to minimize migration into the wild food chain.)

Seconded. And to add, there are better pesticides than DDT available now, so we're not limited to the use of a clearly enviromentally harmful chemical.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So we still have no examples where scientists said "X is true" and the public said "no it's not" and the public was right.

 

[RealityCheck]

So we still have no examples where scientists said "X is true" and the public said "no it's not" and the public was right.

It's going to be hard to find something like this for a few reasons:

1) The general public, and hence politicians, are largely unaware of what goes on in scientific study and research. There are only a handful of things they are aware of at any time... today it would be things like cloning, global climate change, but not much beyond those few things.

2) Even on those things that the public is aware of, the public's set of information is usually limited to what is reported to them through journalists, who, as has been consistently and repeatedly demonstrated, have a hard time reporting accurate and thorough information about current science. Scientists, obviously, are not working with facts reported to them by journalists.

3) Even when given inaccurate facts about a subject that the public is aware of, the typical lay-person does not form his/her conclusion based on those facts, but on their own pre-determined beliefs and sense of morality.

The only possible item I could think of, currently, that might turn out this way regards vaccinations for babies/children. There has been a lot of question about whether vaccines preserved with mercury-based preservatives are responsible for rises in autism levels in our country. So far no study has conclusively shown one way or another what the link is, or if there is a link. (Personally I think that the rise of autism has more to do with doctors being aware of it and being able to recognize it when they see it, as opposed to maybe 20-30 years ago.) But it might be that the knee-jerk reaction will turn out to have been correct.

Of course even then it's not really scientists vs. public, but scientists vs. scientists and general public.