Robyn Williams: Did you hear Background Briefing last week when Ann Arnold brilliantly exposed the severe doubts and frightful expense associated with the vitamin industry? The evidence is compelling – if you take it seriously.

Diana Zanfirache does. She’s a PhD student specialising in neuroscience at the University of Queensland. And she’s worried about more than vitamins.

Diana Zanfirache: We have all heard the mantra of science denialism: climate change isn’t real, evolution never happened and fluoride is unsafe. While our lives are constantly permeated by science and technology, the evidence is clear: a war on science has emerged, with vaccines and genetically modified technology on the battle front lines. Gone are the days where the mainstream public trust the reasoned scientific consensus and where scientists are the only source of knowledge. A new trend has emerged where the scientific method and scientists are fast being replaced with emotionally driven mobs spreading the misinformation of pseudo-science, pseudo-spiritualism, modern mystical literature, new age philosophy and quantum mysticism. While featured celebrities on various media platforms have branded themselves as the new gatekeepers of scientific information on highly contentious issues. False information is sprinkled with a light dose of ‘science’, coupled with the illusion of scientific accuracy and repackaged with the trappings of appeal, leading to misconceptions that are continuously promoted. It’s this irrational denial of clear and convincing scientific evidence by people whose worldviews conflict with what the evidence states that has led to a new movement where the battle between reason and reality has ensued. Science denialism is at an all time high, and we need to ask ourselves why society has lost its trust in the institution of science and what can be done to reverse this dangerous trend.

Mention the subject of vaccines, genetically modified crops, vitamin use or organic foods at a dinner party and I am sure it will stir up contentious debate, with everyone the ‘expert’ on their topic of choice. It will be easy to spot the science denialist at the dinner table, while unknowingly chewing away at their genetically modified brussel sprout, they are going to nit-pick every bit of valid evidence you have, and throw out badly misinterpreted science faster than you can clarify it. They will either be saying something that is wrong or something that they really don’t understand, while reinforcing their own beliefs and opinions. Their goal isn’t to help the audience understand the science, but to make you look like you lack credibility. This is the common feature of most denialist’s, and what’s even more evident is that it shows that the issues at heart are not just about science, but rather about how we make decisions based on our emotions and values against the evidence.

Simply bring up the issue of food, and it will be obvious that a new battle between reason, opinion and emotion has ensued over biotech crops, where pro environmentalists and the media have successfully branded genetically modified foods (GMO) as ‘frankenstein foods’. This movement tends to live in the embodiment of the naturalistic fallacy where everything ‘natural’ is good and everything ‘unnatural is bad’. We continuously object GMO food yet we fail to understand that almost everything we eat has been modified by man, and the product of artificial selection. Yet, we don’t associate these types of foods as genetically modified as they haven’t been ‘made’ in a lab, even though they have genetic codes that are simply not found in nature. Simply put, it doesn’t matter if a new organism was produced by the merging of two different genes in a laboratory or by careful breeding. GMO’s are simply a natural extension of what farmers have been doing for thousands of years. With this realization in place, the majority of arguments against GMO technology fall apart.

Already, we’ve seen vitamin A enriched rice with the potential of easing global malnutrition problems available on the market. Sadly, the potential for this technology is lost when emotionally driven mobs are raising their pitch forks in anger - associating GMO foods with too many chemicals, pesticides, hormones, the loss of biodiversity and the issues of product labelling. The real problem stems from traditional farming practices being undermined with the monopolization of seed markets for global capitalistic gain. I agree with all of the sentiments shared, however these arguments are about law, morality, patenting – not science. It seems on a deeper level, this debate has evoked tension because it is not just about science, but a contest of values. What I’m asking is that people trust the experts and the scientific method, because it works. Activists often cite the alleged potential health risks of genetically modified foods, however these claims are usually cherry picked from sources that lack scientific credibility. The current scientific consensus regarding GMO’s remains unchanged: they are safe and do not pose a health risk to humans. The reality is that in the next 50 years we're going to have to grow 70% more food than we do right now. I doubt we’ll find our salvation to this problem in the Garden of Eden, we need to rely on the scientific method to fix these issues.

It was English Biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley who brilliantly stated that “science is nothing but trained and organised common sense”. Where philosophy once provided the toolkit for moral and social progress, science has emerged to engage more directly with the important existential questions. Taken in its entirety science and the scientific method seek to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. Observation, explanation, experimental design, transparency, repeatability, and a thorough peer review process is the framework that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations. It’s this framework that has led to the numerous medical and scientific advancements of our generation. Yet despite all of our accomplishments, we still face issues that need to be addressed; world hunger, oil, gas, sustainable farming and renewable energy are the many reasons why we need science now more than ever. What worries me the most is how unjustified and unscientific thinking is fuelling an epidemic of fear towards particular issues in the mainstream public.

The anti-vaccination movement for example has spread like wild fire by modern parents and their ‘keyboard activism’. While parents continue to worry about vaccines, scientific progress faces an uphill battle to reverse this view point, when the quest for medical and health information at the doctor’s office has been replaced with web research and harmful media coverage. The public are increasingly relying on the media for information, yet we put celebrity endorses of the anti-vaccine movement on a pedestal as they promote anecdotal evidence as fact, while ridiculing the scientific method on talk shows with such sentiments as “Google is my science” or “I should have a doctorate in Google”. Those that oppose vaccinations do so for one main reason - that a vaccine may cause a negative immune reaction that triggers autism. The result of a small study by Dr Andrew Wakefield linking the mercury in the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine with stomach disorders and autism. This garnered world attention, firstly for its publication in the highly reputable medical journal ‘The Lancet’, and secondly after the paper was found to be fraudulent, and his results inconclusive. Yet the vaccine and autism link is still a contentious issue of debate, despite epidemiological evidence showing no association between vaccination and autism. Numerous studies have all reported the same consistent results, no correlation and no connection. Experts have further emphasised vaccines to have a better safety record than vitamins, yet vaccines are criticised but vitamins embraced.

By this point, if you’re still at the dinner table with the science denialist, ask them their stance on vitamin and supplement use. I’m sure they will recite an alphabet worthy list of pills to you, and this shouldn’t be surprising as Australia readily spends an estimated $1.5 billion dollars each year on vitamins and supplements. What’s most alarming is that the Department of Health and Ageing found that as many as 90% of over the counter vitamins and supplements examined did not contain the active ingredient specified or the claims made for them. Yet 52% of the Australian population takes some form of complementary medicine, with over a third of this number taking vitamin pills. Just take a stroll down your chemist or supermarket aisle and you’ll be sure to find miracle elixirs ranging from tablets, powders and oils for increased energy, cleansing and detox or a boosted immune system. To be clear, I’m not criticising all supplementation use - folate, vitamin K and B12 are just some of the vitamins that have been extensively studied, and prescribed by Doctors in larger than nutritional doses for therapeutic purposes. What I’m criticizing is an industry that has led the general public to believe that vitamin supplementation is necessary for maintaining general health, when the consensus from scientists does not support this.

So what started this multibillion dollar industry, and vitamin myth where we think we need vitamin supplementation? In 1970, after winning two Nobel prizes in chemistry and peace activism, Linus Pauling published a paper titled “Vitamin C and the Common Cold”, urging the public to take 3,000 milligrams of vitamin C every day, about 50 times the recommended daily allowance. Sales of vitamin C tripled, and drugstores couldn't keep up with demand. By the mid-1970s, 50 million Americans were following Pauling's advice with vitamin manufacturers calling it "the Linus Pauling effect". Other scientists weren’t as enthusiastic, as other studies followed, the evidence began to mount – Pauling was wrong. By this point, it didn’t matter how many studies refuted his original claims, the public was hooked. He further declared that vitamin C could not just cure colds, but cancer and that other vitamins and supplements could treat every disease known to man. These colourful pills were touted to treat diseases such as polio, mumps, measles, mental illness and diabetes. However, no credible scientific data has ever substantiated these claims, and despite his vitamin C advocacy, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. There is no doubt that in his early career, Linus Pauling was a brilliant scientist, however his research in his late career further reiterates the point that the scientific consensus should be trusted by the public, with individual sources always questioned. His promotion of megavitamin therapy, dietary supplements and taking large doses of vitamin C have never gained acceptance in the wide stream scientific community, with the data remaining clear: high doses of vitamins and supplements increase the risk of heart disease and cancer.

Many listeners at this point may be asking, “Who cares? Let people do what they want to do, if people want to buy high strength celery seed tablets, instead of eating celery, let them”. However, we should care; our society is quickly going down a rabbit hole where pseudo-science and magic is replacing the scientific method, where inappropriate vitamin use, pseudo-spiritual therapies, and pseudo-medicine is replacing medicine and science. We should care when we see alarming statistics like that in Mullumbimby, northern New South Wales; deemed Australia’s anti vaccination heartland, where vaccination levels are comparable to that of the developing country of South Sudan, where under 50 per cent of children aged five are fully vaccinated. Are you comfortable with that statistic? We should care when logic and reason is being replaced with an emotional filter that causes us to light the torches and scream in fear, even when no real threat is there. It seems that as soon as emotion is present no amount of reason, evidence, data, logic, graphs or facts change our mind. We cherry pick and distort evidence, automatically repelling evidence that isn’t in line with our preconceived ideologies, and instead favour the views we already hold.

Science isn’t a set of core values or ideologies that are forced upon a society, it’s a process and framework where the search for an objective answer is found and changed based on the evidence presented. Science doesn’t hide under a veil of secrecy, the scientific consensus on vaccines, GMO technology and vitamin supplementation is always subject to change if there is sufficient reproducible evidence that may impact it. One of my favourite scientists and one of the most inspirational voices of science, cosmologist Neil deGrasse Tyson has stated that:

“One of the greatest features of science is that it doesn’t matter where you were born, what the belief systems of your parents might have been. If you perform the same experiment that someone else did, at a different time and place, you’ll get the same result.”

In extension to this, I have spoken before on a previous Ockham’s Razor, titled “Investing in Science” about the importance of education through promotion and public engagement of science. The rising popular movements of alternative medicine, and pseudo-scientific therapies are increasing at a rapid rate as the public does not know what to make of scientific research, and has a poor understanding of how findings are reached, especially when it comes to assessing future risk. The public are left worse off, often being given little understanding of a story’s scientific significance. It’s these mistakes and exaggerations that can impact the publics’ confidence in scientific claims. The problem is not always scientifically illiterate kids, but rather scientifically illiterate adults. We need to avoid these future logical fallacies by creating a scientifically literate society who has the capacity to understand and discuss the basic and complex issues reported in the media, with the basis of evidence rather than opinion. Scientific culture needs to be embedded in the young minds of the next generation of not only science graduates but other industries responsible for disseminating issues of science to the mainstream public. We need to push harder for an education system that teaches evidence based decision making as we tackle some of the most difficult challenges facing the future of humanity.

So, next time you’re at a dinner party and find yourself sitting next to a science denialist, return the favour, latch onto every illogical inconsistency they throw at you and force them to address it. Find out exactly what they object to and where they have been getting their information from. I doubt you’ll force them to have a sudden epiphany by the time dessert is served, but you can be part of the process that breaks down the barriers to begin to change peoples’ minds. I remain optimistic about the future of science and technology, and I hope that humans will increasingly realize that rational thinking is better than irrational thinking. Non-scientific thinking will always permeate through the masses, however I hope that scientific investigation will prevail in all aspects of modern society in the future. For now though, I will just have to forge my battle one dinner party at a time.

Robyn Williams: As Tim Minchin does. Remember his story about Storm? Diana Zanfirache is doing her PhD at the University of Queensland. Next week, at the other end of the academic scale, David Lloyd, Vice Chancellor at the University of South Australia, talks about his late mate Terry Pratchett. I’m Robyn Williams.