John's Blog

Pimentel, "Junk" Science, and the scientific process

So on both my biofuels mailing list and over at TDIclub.com, Cornell professor David Pimentel has become a bit of a pariah thanks to his repeated reports that ethanol and biodiesel have a negative energy balance. That is, his calculations claim that these renewable fuels require greater energy input that they return. Thing is, other scientists as well as the lay public have repeatedly pointed out flaws in the assumptions used by Pimentel. Not only does he continue to use these flawed assumptions, but the mainstream media continues to gobble up his press releases uncritically.

So while Pimentel may rightfully deserve scorn for repeatedly releasing skewed reports long after the errors have been pointed out, he should not be attacked personally for doing so. And yet, that is exactly what some in the biofuels community have begun to do.

Science is self-correcting and already has a culture to deal with incorrect results, be they intentional or accidental. As noted by Carl Sagan in 1987:

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

Frankly however, with respect to Dr. Sagan, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Dr. Pimental to come around given his past intransigence. If Kuhn was right, we may have to wait another couple of decades for Pimental to stop publishing his misleading reports.

Still, to blindly lambaste David Pimental (and frankly, any scientist we disagree with) is to move the discourse from the rational to the emotional. And that is simply unacceptable. "Junk science" is not a label to be capriciously applied to research that has implications we don't like. It's unacceptable whether we're talking about the right and climate change or the left and sustainability of biofuels.

Instead, the best way to expose flawed calculations or conclusions is to refute the logic used to arrive at the conclusion and to rebut the argument on its merits. Problem is, that's tough to do as it requires in-depth knowledge and lots of time. Instead, its far easier just to blast the messenger, but that doesn't make it okay. The witch-hunt Congressman Barton is leading against Michael Mann is only one such egregious example.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote Thomas Kuhn's legacy was that he taught "the process of science was fundamentally human, that discoveries were the product not of some plodding, rational process but of human ingenuity intermingled with politics and personality--that science was, in the end, a social process."

Kuhn may be right, and science may be a flawed human process, but frankly, it's the best we've got. And personally, I'd rather put my faith it in over emotionally driven witch-hunts.

---