Chunk’s philosophy corner: could we please stop being such BOOBS?

LOTS OF PEOPLE I know complain about the right wing’s irrationality and hostility to science, and no wonder! Think intelligent design, global warming, Terri Schiavo, etc.

But is the left much better? Like their conservative counterparts, leftists (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. comes to mind) tend to embrace silly conspiracy theories—about the usual suspects—that depend for their plausibility on cherry picking and other fallacies. And among many leftists I know, any prima facie valid evidence that challenges an enlightened “truth” is rejected out of hand. For them, science is an ally, until it isn’t. Then it’s just tossed aside as just more right-wing crappola.

I’m here to suggest that that is an asshole thing to do.

Obviously, my complaint doesn’t apply to all liberals or all conservatives. Still, in general, leftists and rightists—most of us—tends to reveal stunning scientific boobery, and that ain’t good, because much is at stake, especially for future generations, and so we’d better get our facts straight.

The issue concerning SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS isn’t earth-shatteringly important, but it’s in the news again, and it will illustrate my "boobery" thesis.

Friday’s OC Register ran a story about the FDA’s recent reversal concerning silicone breast implants. According to the article,

The FDA on Friday reversed more than a decade-long ban on silicone implants, clearing the way for Allergan of Irvine to begin selling the product that many doctors and women prefer…Silicone implants were banned because of leaks that sickened thousands of women. Today's version [of silicone breast implants] is different and safe, doctors say…. (Silicone OK)

Yesterday, the LA Times reported that

…After rigorous review, the FDA can offer a "reasonable assurance" that silicone implants are "safe and effective," said Donna-Bea Tillman, director of the FDA Office of Device Evaluation…But she emphasized that the implants are subject to breakdown within the body…..

…Concern about the health consequences of leaking implants prompted the FDA in 1992 to ban their use in cosmetic procedures….

Studies have found no association between silicone implants and cancer or other life-threatening diseases, although the FDA said Friday that it will continue to monitor for any such risk.

...On Capitol Hill, several prominent female lawmakers expressed doubts about the decision. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), said she may hold hearings into the decision next year. "This appears to be yet another example of the FDA dismissing scientific evidence in order to appease corporate interests," said DeLauro, who is in line to chair the panel that controls the FDA's purse strings…. (FDA ends ban)

I believe that, if you ask the average person about silicone breast implants, they’ll likely tell you that the things are unsafe and that they caused serious diseases. That’s why they were taken off the market years ago.


But, in fact, there has never been any evidence that silicone breast implants cause life-threatening diseases. Granted, they leak. And when they leak or rupture, that needs to be fixed. But the “rupture” problem is not life-threatening.

Don't get me wrong: I'm as suspicious of big nasty companies like Dow Corning as the next guy. But watchdogs lose ground when they tag corporations (et al.) for stuff they didn't do. Ultimately, that kind of tagging becomes serious self-taggery.

Dow Corning, the manufacturer of silicone breast implants in the 90s, is probably a shitty and nasty corporation, but, in this instance, it got a raw deal, and it's still getting a raw deal. Consider the above Register article. The Reg says that silicone implants “were banned because of leaks that sickened thousands of women.”

Well, they leaked all right. But did they sicken all those women?

The Times article does a little better. According to the Times, “Studies have found no association between silicone implants and cancer or other life-threatening diseases, although the FDA said Friday that it will continue to monitor for any such risk.”


OK, HERE'S THE THING. Back in the 90s, women—thousands of them—sued Dow Corning for subjecting them to “dangerous” silicone breast implants. They got a big fat settlement, a record-breaker. They got that settlement despite the absence of any evidence that the leaking silicone was causing anything. As Robert Todd Carroll wrote at the time:

The two experts who testified for the [women]…were seemingly reputable scientists. They testified to the causal connection between breast implants and such things as connective tissue disease. Dow paid off millions and filed for bankruptcy. Jenny Jones and Oprah had programs featuring women who'd had breast implants and were suffering from painful disorders. The general public would reasonably conclude from such behavior that there must be strong evidence that breast implants caused these disorders.

OK, here’s the clincher, logic fans:

Yet, the rest of the medical scientific community maintains that given the more than one million women who have had breast implants, it would be expected by chance, if there were no causal connection between the implants and disease, that about 1% or 10,000 women would be ill, because that is the percent of women in the general population who suffer from these problems. That is what the studies have found.

Think about that. It ain’t rocket science. Just put two and two together:

If there were a causal connection [between having silicone breast implants and getting these diseases], the percentage of women who'd had breast implants suffering from diseases such as connective tissue disease should be significantly higher than that for women who do not have breast implants.

It isn't.

Nearly seven years later, Carroll updated the story:

Boston Globe Columnist Alex Beam has an interesting article today in praise of Marcia Angel, former executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Angel brought the wrath of feminist hell upon herself in 1992 when she wrote an editorial challenging the Food and Drug Administration's decision to ban the manufacture of silicone breast implants. She dared to challenge the FDA, even though nobody had done any medical studies on the issue. It didn't matter. The lawyers extorted a $4.25 billion settlement against the implant manufacturers without needing any scientific evidence that the implants were harming women….

"The whole sequence was upside-down," Angel says. "First we had the lawsuits, then the FDA ban, and then the announcement of the largest class-action settlement in history. Only two months later did we get the first scientific study of the issue in question. What causes this is the use of expert witnesses. The expert gives an opinion, and that becomes the evidence. Since they are hired by the adversaries, they get the most extreme people they can find. In science it's the opposite. It doesn't matter who you are; what matters are what your data say."

The data didn't support the lawyers or the feminists.

We are fortunate to live in a society in which people can debate issues more or less freely. But our debates would be tons more valuable if people—both on the right and the left and anywhere else—would finally get a CLUE about the scientist’s concept of evidence and the logician’s concept of a sound argument.

(Note: I added all the italics to quoted passages.)

See

● NOW contra FDA - 11/17/06
● Mass media bunk, Robert Todd Carroll
● Junk science 1999
● Wall Street Journal editorial, 1999
● Wikipedia on breast implants
● Frontline's chronology