In Depth › Analysis and Opinion

Simple science is not risk free

How do you sift through complex science arguments to make decisions about the kind of world you want to live in? Seek simplicity and weigh up all the risks and benefits, writes Paul Willis.

People often tell me they find science difficult or complicated and that this complexity scares them away from engaging with science. I, in turn, have difficulties understanding this view because, to me, science is about simplicity and clarity, it even has in-built mechanisms to keep things simple.

Anyone who can follow football league table as it evolves through the season with all of its vagaries and uncertainties ought to have no problem understanding the periodic table with its fixed and logical rules and elegant structure.

The periodic table is a simple summary of a huge wealth of information we have amassed about matter condensed into a simple and logical format. Yet every year another cohort of high school chemistry students quake in fear at having to come to terms with this scientific masterpiece.

The fundamental principle of simplicity in science is enshrined in Ockham's razor. Basically, don't make things any more complicated than they need to be or, when confronted by two competing hypotheses, the one that requires the least assumptions (the simplest) is the most likely to be correct.

That's not to say that things can't get complicated, but every time you want to introduce another complicating factor into your argument, you'd better have good evidence to back up its inclusion.

^ to top

Apply Ockham's razor

That's why Ockham's razor is such a good tool for identifying conspiracy theories. Invariably a conspiracy theory requires a complicated hypothesis with lots of assumptions and, if it were true, there would be lots of evidence to back up the inclusion of those assumptions.

'Climate change is nothing more than a collusion of scientists trying to get more grant funding' is a conspiracy theory that can easily be dismissed. If this were true there ought to be abundant examples of communications between climate scientists trying to manipulate the data to fit the conclusions. No such evidence has been produced, let alone the mountain of dodgy emails and other correspondence that ought to exist if such a global collusion was actually taking place.

Simplicity, parsimony, succinctness and economy really are the golden threads that are woven through all of the sciences. That something as complex, universal and all-pervasive as the relationship between matter and energy can be reduced to one elegant equation (E=mc2) is a brilliant illustration of how science simplifies a complex reality.

That natural selection elegantly reduces hundreds of millions of years of complicated events and phenomena into a few simple rules that explain how evolution has occurred is an astounding example of the simplifying abilities of science.

That the behaviour of the unseen flow of electrons through conducting materials can be distilled down to the few simple equations of electrical circuit theory not only makes that activity understandable, it gives us the tools needed to manipulate nature into building motors, lights and the whole host of electrical devices that are the cornerstone of our modern civilisation.

And so on through all the sciences. Science is the very recent human endeavour of making the mechanics of nature simpler so that we can understand it.

There's a really good reason why science strives for simplicity; it's easier to test. The more assumptions you add into a hypothesis, the more difficult it is to design experiments that will account for them. Once again I'll stress that the simplest explanation need not be the correct one, but it is a lot easier to deal with.

^ to top

Precautionary principle

If the nature of simplicity in science is widely unappreciated, then a twin concept called the precautionary principle is just as widely misunderstood.

A popular formulation of the precautionary principle is uselessly simple; if there is a risk with a particular course of action then don't do it. 'Useless' in that, by this formulation, you would never do anything. The reality is that all actions are associated with some level of risk.

I say that the precautionary principle is twinned with Ockham's razor and simplicity because they are both most easily expressed as choices.

Whereas Ockham's razor provides for a choice between hypotheses based on the levels of simplicity, the precautionary principle is a tool to provide choice between two paths of action based on risk and benefit.

An accurate formulation of the precautionary principle would be to consider the risks and benefits of a course of action prior to committing to it and, when choosing between two courses of action, favour the one with the lowest risk and the greatest benefit. It's not a foolproof formula for avoiding risk or always making the right choice; in many cases the best course of action might involve a higher level of risk because it produces a much greater range of benefits. What it is all about is weighing up the potential outcomes ahead of starting out and asking the question: "Are the benefits really worth the risks?"

^ to top

Benefit v risk

The precautionary principle is misapplied in virtually every popular debate surrounding science and technology in the modern world.

The unfortunately popular application of the precautionary principle to the question of establishing a nuclear waste facility is: "Don't do it, it's too risky". A proper application in the principle in this case would ask: "What are the risks and benefits of not establishing a nuclear waste facility and how do they compare to the risks and benefits of building one?". The potential dangers of not storing nuclear waste securely in proper, purpose-built facilities far outweigh the risks of going down this path.

And so on through so many other issues; the potential benefits of genetic engineering greatly surpass the risks of not doing that research and employing the resultant technology; the potential catastrophic effects of not mitigating against climate change dramatically outclass the costs of decarbonising the environment and preparing for effects that are already in the pipeline; if we do not address global population growth we will encounter much greater negative side effects than if we do face up to this problem.

By assessing and comparing future risks and potential benefits, the precautionary principle can be an effective tool in helping to decide what paths we should take toward a brighter future.

So, to those people who admit to me that they are intimidated by complicated, unfathomable science and use this as a way of avoiding making decisions about the kind of world we want to live in, I have two simple pieces of advice: seek out the simplicity — it's usually there and makes the science accessible. And, when assessing whether or not to back a particular stance on a particular issue, think through and weigh up all the risks and benefits of both doing and not doing that particular action.

It's really not that hard. Picking winners using a little bit of science is far more straightforward than picking the winners of any football league and the consequences are far more profound.

About the author: Dr Paul Willis is the director of RiAus, Australia's unique national science hub, which showcases the importance of science in everyday life. The well-known palaeontologist and broadcaster previously worked for ABC TV's Catalyst program.



^ to top