First off, I just need to get this off my chest – this book is ridiculous. I found myself laughing out loud at so many points – the seductive woman just killed this guy! This guy just died by falling off a cliff! Now we’re in Antarctica and someone else is trying to kill us! Now we’re back in Arizona and someone is controlling the WEATHER to kill us!
Okay. That being said, through telling an absurd story, he is making some insightful comments of science and its relation to economic, politics and society, and how scary they can be. And while I’m mocking this type of novel, the fast paced, action packed narrative style makes it incredibly simple to read, and therefore incredible simple to digest the more pertinent issues that Crichton is presenting to the reader.
In the very beginning of the novel when Evans, Morton and Drake are in Iceland to visit with geologist Einarrson, Drake attempts to persuade the scientist to use certain “soft language”, let’s say, in the beginning of his paper that would not make his argument sound anti-climate change (read: detract evidence from his own interests, his own organization, his own conference, his own $$). Einarrson refuses, stating, “How the information is used is not my concern. My concern is to report the truth as best I can” (page 56). Drake believes this to be a noble, yet impractical opinion. This argument is telling. Einarrson believes that as a scientist, his main goal is to report. Drake, however, does not believe it is possible to simply “report fact” without having it be used politically. Drake is probably right. This passage, and this book as a whole, attempts the reader to question where our “facts” are coming from. Crichton is demonstrating that each facet of society has its own set of interests, and each facet will attempt to use facts to their advantage in order to promote these interests.
Weeks ago, we discussed the black box effect that especially can result from science. Once something is published, it becomes real. People no longer question where it came from nor if there are different studies that could possible refute it. Instead, it is simply accepted at face value. While Crichton would not use this language, he is attempting the reader to start un-black boxing all they think of as fact. He is urging us to start seeing the different relationships at play that surround each issue of science that we accept without questioning. He wants the reader to comprehend the political, economic, and social factors that all are potentially invested in science.
That’s why he includes the issue of eugenics in Appendix 1. He writes, “What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one’s neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on” (727). While he makes sure to specifically state that he not comparing climate change to eugenics, he uses it as particularly scary example of how what really are social, political issues can instead become issues of “science” to make them sound more real and factual.
This is totally a black box issue, and I think part of the problem is that the scientists and experts are still black boxed. No one is seeing into it, and those who at least think they are are seeing different things. It's scary for a public as a whole to know that something is wrong, but not know exactly what or why, and to know that no one else knows for certain either. So, if we don't know what the problem is or how to fix it, it's much easier to claim that it just doesn't exist! It's a terrifying solution, but State of Fear makes it all the more alluring.
ReplyDelete