Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet - 1989 04

Magazine Overview

This issue of "BASIS", the newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, dated April 1989 (Vol. 8, No. 4), features two main articles. The first, "High Delusion" by John Lattanzio, discusses the controversy surrounding Professor Jacques Benveniste's experiments on the biological effects of highly diluted substances, published in the journal "Nature". The second, "Degrees of Folly: Part III" by William Bennetta, continues an investigation into the accreditation of degree programs at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a religious ministry promoting "creation-science".

High Delusion: The Benveniste Experiment

John Lattanzio, an astrophysicist and BAS director, analyzes the affair concerning Professor Jacques Benveniste's research, which claimed to demonstrate that human white blood cells respond to antibody solutions even when no antibody molecules are present, and that this biological activity fluctuates with increasing dilution. This research, published in "Nature" on June 30, 1988, was likened to experimental verification of homeopathy, a concept that challenges fundamental scientific understanding.

"Nature" initially insisted on replication by independent laboratories before publication. These replications, arranged by Benveniste in Israel, Italy, and Canada, reportedly yielded similar results. However, "Nature" then sent an investigating team, consisting of editor John Maddox, physicist Walter Stewart, and magician James Randi, to observe further repetitions. Their report, published on July 28, 1988, concluded that the experiments were statistically ill-controlled, included observer bias and systematic error, and were not always reproducible.

The article highlights that two of Benveniste's co-authors were paid by Boiron et Cie., a supplier of homeopathic medicines, raising conflict of interest concerns. A double-blind experiment supervised by the investigating team yielded negative results.

Benveniste, in his reply to the "Nature" report, accused the investigators of creating a "tornado of intense and constant suspicion, fear, and psychological and intellectual pressure unfit for scientific work," and described them as "astonishingly incompetent." He warned that such "inquiry must immediately be stopped" and likened it to "Salem witch hunts or McCarthy-like prosecutions," emphasizing that "Science flourishes only in freedom."

Lattanzio posits two points for consideration: the effect on science and the perception of the public. He argues that "Nature" was correct to publish the article, as a scientific journal's role is to publicize research, provided reasonable standards are met. He notes that while the claims were extraordinary, they were initially "verified" by independent labs, though these may also have been in error. The ongoing process of science, he states, determines veracity. However, he criticizes "Nature" for sending an investigating team, calling them "ghostbusters."

The article also references a letter from G.A. Petsko, a chemist, who warns that in a competitive scientific environment, publishing a "wrong interpretation of data" can be harmful, and argues for the "decriminalization of error" to foster honest scientific inquiry.

Lattanzio concludes that the public has a poor understanding of how science corrects itself and that the "Nature" fiasco, while unique, might be forgotten. He quotes P.J. Lipowicz, who suggested it would be easier to prove an incredible result than to disprove it.

Degrees of Folly: Part III - The Institute for Creation Research

William Bennetta's article continues his investigation into the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and its Graduate School (ICRGS), an arm of the ICR that promotes "creation-science," described as a pseudoscience based on literal biblical readings. The article focuses on the process of seeking approval for the ICRGS's degree programs from the California Department of Education.

In 1981, the Department approved the ICRGS's MS degrees in biology, geology, "astro/geophysics," and science education. However, by 1987, when the ICR applied for renewed approval, "creation-science" and its proponents had been repeatedly discredited.

A committee of five was appointed in August 1988 to assess the ICR's programs. The committee members included professors from Stanford, San Diego State, United States International University, Occidental College, and The Master's College. Notably, George Howe, from The Master's College, was nominated by Henry Morris, the ICR's president, and emerged as an advocate for the ICR. Roy W. Steeves managed the committee.

The committee's report was criticized as "farcical," omitting or obscuring the ICR's aims and promoting the fiction that it conducted scientific work. Despite this, the report recommended approval by a vote of 3 to 2. The report's final page listed only the names of the committee members, without their professions or qualifications.

Two members, Woodhead and Hurlbert, who voted against approval, later provided separate accounts detailing the ICR's operations and misrepresentations. Hurlbert stated he had little influence on the report and exposed the ICR's tactics.

In a subsequent meeting, Howe presented a document, largely written by Henry Morris, to rebut Hurlbert's account. The meeting was inconclusive. The Department later sent additional information to committee member Robert Kovach, who had not previously known the extent of the controversy.

Bennetta details the backgrounds of Howe and Morris, noting their long association in fundamentalist organizations promoting "creation-science" and seeking to remove evolution from public schools.

The article questions the composition of the committee, noting that Steeves enlisted fewer technically qualified educators than required by guidelines, particularly for science education, where no expert was present. Steeves claimed George Howe, a biology professor, was qualified to assess science education due to his role as Chairperson of the Division of Natural Sciences at The Master's College. However, Howe's division did not offer programs or courses in education.

Regarding astrophysics, Steeves claimed geophysics expertise was sufficient, citing Kovach's background. The committee operated with limited information, receiving significant details only at the meeting itself. Kovach, the committee chairman, stated there was an agreement not to identify him as such. Steeves insisted the report be short and avoid detail to reach a conclusion quickly.

The report was drafted by Kovach from separate pieces written by members, with no significant rewriting. Steeves emphatically precluded lengthy deliberation, insisting the report be typed and signed the same evening.

Despite the report's perceived flaws, members signed it for various reasons: Woodhead signed to indicate his presence; Hurlbert signed as a statement of participation, acknowledging omissions and errors; Kovach felt it was competently prepared given the time; Miller saw it as a representative view; and Howe felt it was a "very good report and said what we wanted to say."

In November, Bill Honig, the new Superintendent of Public Instruction, began to address the issue. After reviewing additional information, Honig changed his vote, stating that if the committee had had all the information, he would not have voted for approval.

On December 8, the "New York Times" reported that Honig had barred the ICR from granting science degrees, stating that their teachings were not science. The ICR refused an offer to recommend approval if they changed their name and stopped calling it science.

Later, the Department decided to deny approval, but negotiations with the ICR led to an agreement, the substance of which was not revealed. The article concludes by posing the question of what was going on and promising an answer next month.

Sidebar: The Guru Says No

This sidebar addresses whether "creation-scientists" at the ICR are actually doing creation research. According to Henry Morris, the ICR's president, the answer is no. Morris argues in his book "The Twilight of Evolution" that since creation occurred through processes no longer in operation, it cannot be studied by scientific means, limiting knowledge to divine revelation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The "BASIS" newsletter, through these articles, demonstrates a strong commitment to skepticism and the promotion of scientific integrity. The editorial stance is critical of pseudoscience, flawed methodologies, and institutional processes that appear to compromise scientific standards. The Benveniste affair highlights the importance of rigorous peer review and the potential for bias in scientific research. The ICR case underscores the need for clear distinctions between science and religious dogma, and the importance of accurate assessment in educational accreditation. The newsletter advocates for transparency and accountability in both scientific and academic institutions.

This document contains selected articles from the April 1989 issue of "BASIS", the monthly publication of the Bay Area Skeptics (BAS). The issue covers topics including educational fraud, the definition and perception of "scientism", and critiques of astrology and UFO cover-up theories.

Articles

Diploma Mills and Educational Integrity

The issue begins with a report based on a United Press International (UPI) dispatch from January 26, concerning Joseph Barankin, director of the PPED. The UPI report, written by Teresa Simons, alleged a "romantic relationship" between Barankin and Catherine Sizemore, a chief lobbyist for schools regulated by the PPED. Articles based on this dispatch appeared in the "San Diego Union" and the "San Francisco Examiner".

The report also highlights the book "Diploma Mills: Degrees of Fraud" by David W. Stewart and Henry A. Spille. The author of this section recommends the book for understanding the regulatory environment surrounding fraudulent educational institutions and the integrity of education. California is identified as the nation's primary location for diploma mills, with the book dedicating a chapter to this issue. A copy of the book can be ordered for $20 from Macmillan Publishing Co.

A NOTE ON SCIENTISM by Yves Barbero

This article addresses the accusation of "scientism" often leveled against skeptics. Yves Barbero explains that the term is frequently misused to imply that skeptics "make a religion of science." He provides a definition from the "Random House Dictionary," which describes scientism as the style and assumptions of scientists, or the belief that physical science methods are universally applicable, or the use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.

Barbero notes that some people dislike skeptics for their alleged "religious" practice of science and become disappointed when skeptics do not blindly accept their notions of science. He recounts instances where an astrologer accused CSICOP of worshiping science and a caller to the BAS electronic bulletin board expressed anger about promoting a talk on skepticism in India, deeming it associating with "miracle mongers."

The author argues that cultural carryovers from a time when dogma was accepted as a foundation for inquiry contribute to this misunderstanding. He clarifies that sound scientific methodology is not about rigid rules but about ensuring personal prejudice does not interfere with research. He acknowledges the risk of skeptics falling into the trap of making skepticism an ideology or dogma, especially when expressing a minority viewpoint.

Barbero emphasizes that while skeptics may have prejudices against notions like astrology or telepathy, these cannot impede objective analysis. He states that Bay Area Skeptics is not a club but an organization focused on self-education and self-discipline, with a low tolerance for dogmatic proclamations. The ultimate goal, he concludes, is to understand the nature of things, clear away imposed assumptions, and appreciate the beauty of nature, arts, and history, which he posits is superior to any dogma, including scientism.

SCIENTIFIC THEORY FOR ASTROLOGY

This article recounts an experience with Joan Quigley, an astrologer to the Reagans, who was a guest on KCBS radio in San Francisco. The author, identifying himself as a skeptic, called into the program and questioned Quigley about the scientific basis of astrology. After repeated questioning, Quigley stated that astrology works through "photons."

The author expresses astonishment at this claim, noting that planets are not emitters of photons but only reflectors, and poor ones at that. He points out that the most powerful source of photons during a birth would likely be the delivery room lights, making a photon theory for astrology absurd. The article invites other astrologers to defend this proposition, particularly Quigley's "photon theory."

RAMPARTS

This section, a regular feature of "BASIS", encourages reader participation by submitting "bits of irrationality." It highlights an article from the "Malden News" about Barry Greenwood, author of "Clear Intent: The Government Coverup of the UFO Experience."

Greenwood suggests that the government covers up UFO investigations to avoid admitting that the U.S. is not equipped to deal with the phenomenon, which could lead to a full-scale congressional investigation. He posits that CSICOP and similar groups are tools of this government conspiracy, and that the U.S. is learning technical information about alien ships, keeping it secret from enemies like the Russians. He even speculates that stealth bomber technology was pirated from studying UFOs.

The article then introduces a proposition by UFO expert Phil Klass regarding UFO abductions. Klass suggests that if someone were abducted, standard procedure would be to contact the police, who would then involve the FBI. However, if the FBI determines the report to be false, the individual could face jail time and fines. Klass concludes that the reason no one reports UFO abductions to the FBI is the fear of such repercussions, drawing a parallel to reporting a serious crime like a home invasion and abduction.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims, critical examination of pseudoscientific practices like astrology, and scrutiny of alleged government cover-ups related to UFOs. The publication, "BASIS" by the Bay Area Skeptics, clearly adopts a critical and evidence-based stance, aiming to debunk irrationality and promote scientific understanding. The editorial stance is one of rigorous inquiry, challenging conventional beliefs and exposing what it perceives as fraud or misinformation in areas such as education and paranormal claims.