I just came across this rather interesting address delivered last week by Michael Crichton to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. In it he makes a rather compelling case that much of the climate research today is dangerously biased in a purely scientific sense. In other words, much of the research that has formed the basis of public policy has not been conducted using the usual protections against contaminated data that is foundational to other research, like drug effectiveness studies. I've heard Crichton speak about this before when he was promoting his novel State of Fear. If memory serves, the book was about the use of "junk science" in climate change research to manipulate public policy--admittedly a more distinct point of view than Crichton communicates in this address. While we may have differing opinions about global warming, it's extent and it's causes, I don't think anyone could argue against some of the research improvements Crichton advocates here.
Here's the link.
3 comments:
I wonder what Stephen King has to say about nuclear fission.
You're right. What could Crichton possibly know about the rigors of scientific research?
Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Entered Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; spent one year as a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.
John Grisham's theories on perpetual motion are said to be spellbinding.
I know, I'm just being snarky. Crichton is a smart guy. Although you wouldn't know it from reading CONGO.
Post a Comment