Marianne Williamson Is a Skeptic, Not ‘Anti-Science’

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The accusation of being “anti-science” has become a popular and effective way to discredit people, at least in certain circles. Self-help guru turned presidential candidate Marianne Williamson is learning that after her debate performances.

People often end up accused of being “anti-science” when they question scientific dogma, but questioning dogma is what science is all about. Donald Trump could be more accurately labelled as anti-science for the blatant cutting of funds for important scientific studies – though even he may not be opposed to the scientific enterprise so much as he is trying to protect his friends in industry at the expense of science and people exposed to pollution.

A particularly scathing anti-Williamson critique appeared in the Daily Beast, though the author couldn’t seem to find much fault with anything said in this week’s debate, instead digging up past statements. Indeed, she has dealt with some new-age ideas that are unscientific or even antithetical to science, but not more so than much organized religion is.

According to the piece, Williamson has opposed mandatory vaccinations, though she now says she recognizes their importance, and it seems fair to judge her on what she says now. She has apparently also questioned the use of antidepressants for kids. It’s unscientific to assume all drugs are evil, but there’s nothing wrong with trying to minimize drug use or with questioning the ratio of risks to benefits for popular prescription drugs.

In the debate, she touched on science when she said we should focus on why people are getting sick as well as how to afford care for them. That seems pro-science, as it implies continued funding of the science needed to understand the underlying environmental causes of disease – and reinstating of funds cut by the Trump administration.

Here is the heart of her science-related statement on health care, as nicely transcribed in Vox:

We need to realize we have a sickness care, rather than a health care system. We need to be the party talking about why so many of our chemical policies and our food policies and our agricultural policies and our environmental policies and even our economic policies are leading to people getting sick to begin with.

The main flakiness here is the implicit assumption that external factors are the primary cause of illness. The mortality of the human body is the primary cause of illness. Some diseases come from being dealt a bad genetic hand. Some, such as cancer, can strike at random.

And so we do need sickness care. The notion of preventive medicine is great, but it opens the way for the drug industry to push all sorts of interventions on healthy people, some of which may be overrated. Anyone can get sick, and many illnesses can’t be predicted, let alone prevented. It’s a wonderful thing that modern medicine can sometimes alleviate suffering and even cure some diseases. Sickness care will probably always matter as long as we occupy mortal bodies.

But those policies cited by Williamson are surely responsible for some health problems, and it’s reasonable and pro-science to suggest paying attention to this, presumably by funding scientific studies and shaping policy based on the existing scientific evidence.

Science writers often call out members of the public as anti-science for doubting that vaccines and GMOs are safe. But “safe” isn’t a scientific term. What makes more sense is to talk about the risk-benefit ratio – something I learned from talking with epidemiologists and statisticians such as Sander Greenland from UCLA. Standard childhood vaccines are well-tested and likely to be safe: low risk. They protect kids against diseases that can be nasty: high benefit. Don’t skip them.

Williamson seems likely to disappear from the national conversation soon, and critics are right to go after her lack of policy experience. Criticizing her, or any other candidate, on the basis of ideas and experience makes perfect sense. But trying to discredit skeptics with the label of “anti-science” is not very scientific.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She has written for the Economist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Psychology Today, Science and other publications. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology.

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.