This weekend’s column “Moving at the Speed of Science” is about taking everything, including science and morality, in moderation. You can also find my weekly summary of happenings in Sacramento “This Week in Politics and Policy” at my website.

This week’s radio guest was Berkeley Political Science professor, Bruce Cain. Not surprisingly, you can hear this show (as well as other recent guests, including Governor Deukmejian, Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, etc.) at AlphaState.org.

As always, comments and feedback are encouraged. I hope 2007 is off to a great start for you and thank you for taking the time to read this.

Moving at the speed of Science

Pull quote – Now more than ever, we need to remember – everything in moderation, even science.

Scott Harris

In April 1975, Newsweek published an article on “Global Cooling.” According to the article, there were “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically” and that we could expect a “drastic decline in food production” which would affect “just about every nation on earth.” Time magazine, some scientists and even legendary sci-fi author Isaac Asimov saw global cooling as a serious, man-made (re: capitalist) problem.

Global Warming has now replaced global cooling, though in an ironic twist, recent articles have pointed to the possibility that global warming might actually lead to global cooling. With the ability to reflect on three decades of scientific advances since the Newsweek article, scientific leaders, presidential candidate/filmmaker Al Gore, most environmentalists, and 169 countries (signers of the Kyoto Treaty) are convinced that global warming is a reality and presents a danger of almost unimaginable consequences if we do not act immediately.

I don’t know whether or not global warming is a serious problem or the “crisis of the moment,” and I don’t know if the United States’ refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty was a mistake or not. I do have doubts regarding the severity and immediacy of “Global Warming.”

Frankly, I’m still not sure if eggs, aspirin and wine are going to kill me, or extend my life into a disease-free run past the century mark. I know that in the past few years, it appeared I was going to die from a massive earthquake, a meteorite landing in my backyard, or asphyxiation as deforestation removed the last of the earth’s oxygen.

What I do know is that articles in well-respected media outlets have a way of becoming accepted fact and that with the advent and speed of Internet news, this morning’s rumor is tonight’s lead story and tomorrow’s retraction.

I do know that at the same time I am reading predictions that this summer will be the hottest in history, I am remembering that last year was supposed to be the worst-ever for hurricanes – and it proved to be a below-average year. I know that UC Davis released a study this month showing that 300 million years ago we transitioned from an ice age to a greenhouse and this included erratic temperature swings and increases in carbon monoxide – long before America, the Industrial Age and President Bush.

I know that most of our news media and scientists have spent the last couple of years attacking “religious fanatics” for not supporting – or actively trying to stop – embryonic stem cell research. Now, a report from the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine shows that stem cells from amniotic fluid may offer the same (or even better) scientific benefits, without the moral dilemma of destroying embryos.

What I know most of all is that science and information is moving more quickly than we are able to comprehend fully. Technology, which constitutes a marvelous tool, is still simply that – a tool to be used by mankind. The quantity of information and the speed with which it is delivered should not replace the human thought process. We need time to reflect on what we have learned. Science, unless tempered by thought, morality and time is at least as dangerous as the disasters it so frequently predicts. Concurrently, it is equally dangerous for religion to ignore the advances of science and scientists.

Reacting to “global cooling,” one scientist said in 1972, "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored."

Maybe the earth is heating up as a result of man’s activities. Maybe amniotic stem cells hold the answers to a disease-free future. Maybe the world will face a new dilemma with some announcement next month. However, one thing is certain, the only ones acting irresponsibly are those who are unwilling to invest the time and review the options to balance science and morality.

Now more than ever, we need to remember – everything in moderation, even science.

Scott Harris is a political commentator. Read his columns, hear his radio show and contact him through his Web site, AlphaState.org.