In perusing the science blogs this week, it seems apparantly everyone has either read (or read a review of) the new attack on the anti-science movement by Michael Specter, titled Denialism.  In coining this term for the beliefs of the psuedoscience embracing folk, Specter may in fact be perpetuating the myth seekers - by invoking a knee-jerk denial of denialism. 

Or maybe its just my personal bias, that science can not be force-fed, and anti-science can not be attacked like a war has been waged against it.  

Organic farming, natural remedies (lumped in with vitamin supplements), and the anti-vaccine movement are sidelined in a seemingly indiscriminate fashion in Denialism.   These are not simple science topics to contest with an adamant public - promoting gravity would have been an easier battle - or maybe perhaps even evolution or climate change. 

In fact, organic farming and natural remedies are two areas full of scientific shades of gray, and not in small part because they are areas of active research and ongoing clarification of data.  Several very well respected research universities exemplify this: organic farming research at UC Davis, OSU, Cornell; nutrition research at Yale, Tufts, and even at the NIH who has a specific institute for the research of complementary and alternative medicine. 

Part of the problem may be that so much harm has been done to sound, fact-based information by corporatations seeking to profit under the organic food label or natural/ homeopathic labels, that is difficult now to separate the wheat from the chaff (no pun intended).  And Specter does point out several very dangerous pseudoscience claims (ie: the anti-vaccine movement) but these are muddied with other claims that are not so well supported with data.  And currently the facts on the issues Specter  addresses are being weighed against  facts from other disciplines, leading to qualitative instead of quantitative conclusions.

Indeed, the same knee-jerk defense of organic farming or supplements seems to be in play on the opposite side: scientists unwilling or unable to release the grip on their belief that these are examples of bad science.  In fact, a good scientist is able to roll with the punches, accepting new peer-reviewed studies as they're  published, and integrating those findings (if accepted) with older beliefs.  Certainly we've seen many textbooks re-written when seemingly unmutable facts have been overturned.  (Just look at the appendix data recently!)

So, it makes for an interesting exploration - I'll be reading Denialism in its entirety, mostly to tease apart the sound critique of scientific findings from an emotional resentment of any research that is also slipping into the realm of pop culture and politics.

Some excerpts:

The most blatant forms of denialism are rarely malevolent; they combine decency, a fear of change, and the misguided desire to do good — for our health, our families, and the world.

Denialist arguments are often bolstered by accurate information taken wildly out of context, wielded selectively, and supported by fake experts who often don't seem fake at all.

We no longer trust authorities, in part because we used to trust them too much. Fortunately, they are easily replaced with experts of our own. All it takes is an Internet connection. Anyone can seem impressive with a good Web site and some decent graphics. Type the word "vaccination" into Google and one of the first of the fifteen million or so listings that pops up, after the Centers for Disease Control, is the National Vaccine Information Center, an organization that, based on its name, certainly sounds like a federal agency. Actually, it's just the opposite: the NVIC is the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.

Excerpts from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/books/excerpt-michael-specter.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=denialism&st=cse