The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its simplest
and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and rejection by
scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries that cannot be fitted
into the existing framework of knowledge. The reaction is not merely a
negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is strong enough to cause positive
actions to be taken by leading skeptics to compel a more widespread
adoption in the community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of
opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step out of
line by publicly embracing taboo ideas.
The taboo reaction in such simple
cases is eventually dispelled because the facts – and the value of the
discoveries concerned – prove to be stronger than the taboo belief; but there
remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos prove stronger (or
more valuable) than the discoveries to which they are applied. In its more
subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it
‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing
so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered, fundamental
objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no more than the
unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the
idea of mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is
that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well hold
important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they
may contain are denied us.
Subtler still is the taboo whereby scientists in
certain fields erect a general prohibition against speaking or writing on the
subjects which they consider their own property and where any reference,
especially by an outsider, will draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes,
scientists who declare a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to
discuss and reach conclusions on the matters that they have made their own
property; that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and
subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities of the
subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion.
Outsiders, on the other hand,
(especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to subtleties
of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have devoted long
painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such tabooism is
measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any contribution to knowledge
in terms of rational analysis, or resulting from the different perspective of
those outside the field in question, is lost to the community. In its most
extreme form scientific tabooism closely resembles the behavior of a priestly
caste that is perceived to be the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the
beliefs that are the object of the community’s worship. Such guardians feel
themselves justified by their religious calling and long training in adopting
any measures to repel and to discredit any member of the community who
profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as untouchable.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo reaction is that it tends to
have a cumulative and permanent discriminatory effect: any idea that is
ideologically suspect or counter to the current paradigm is permanently
dismissed, and the very fact of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on
all future occasions. It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the
convicted man’s plea of innocence on the grounds that he must be guilty or
why else is he in jail? And why else did the police arrest him in the first
place? This ‘erring on the side of caution’ means that in the long term the
intellectual Devil’s Island where convicted concepts are sent becomes more
and more crowded with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility
of reprieve. We will never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands
of important discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of
intolerance and misplaced skepticism.â€