1 AU is equal to what?

The distance from Earth to the Sun

The distance from the sun to Mercury

The time it takes light to reach Earth from the sun

Which are the inner planets and have rocky surfaces?

Mercury, Venus, Uranus, Neptune

Planet and other solar system objects

Lesson 1: Why is the interior of the Earth hot? The interior of Earth is very hot (the temperature of the core reaches more than 5,000 degrees Celsius) for two main reasons: . The heat from when the planet formed, . The heat from the decay of radioactive elements. The Earth was formed by the process of accretion. After the creation of our solar system, meteorites gravitationally attracted each other and formed bigger objects, which attracted bigger masses, until our planets reach their current size. This process accumulated a lot of heat; when two objects collide, heat is generated. That is why your hands will get hot when you clap them for too long, or a nail gets very hot when you hammer it for a long time. This heat has not dissipated totally and represents about 10% of the total heat inside the Earth. The main source of heat is the decay of radioactive elements. Radioactive decay is a natural process; unstable elements like 238U (Uranium) or 40K (Potassium) stabilize with time and produce what we call daughter products: 206P (Lead) for Uranium and 40Ar (Argon) for Potassium. This process produces heat, which represents about 90% of the total heat inside the Earth. Lesson 2: How Magma Forms Magma is a molten and semi-molten rock mixture found under the surface of the Earth. This mixture is usually made up the of four parts: hot liquid base, called a melt; minerals crystallized by the melt; solid rocks incorporated into the melt from the surrounding confines; and dissolved gases. When magma is ejected by a volcano or other vent, the material is called lava. Magma that has cooled into a solid is

THE SOAR SYSTEM A solar system is a group of planets and other celestial bodies that revolve around a star. A solar nebula- a vast cloud of gas and dust, mostly hydrogen and helium. How the Solar System Form • COLLAPSE AND SPINNING DISK FORMATION - Gravity pulls material inward. The cloud flattens into a spinning disk due to conservation of angular momentum. • PROTOSTAR FORMATION- (BIRTH OF THE SUN). Material collects at the center, and begun to heat up. When it reaches to 10 million KELVIN, nuclear fusion begins. thus, SUN is born. • PLANETESIMALS AND PROTOPLANETS. Dust and gas in the disk stick together via static and gravitational forces. These form planetesimals, which grow into protoplanets collision and accretion. • PLANET FORMATION. Inner disk: too hot for gas rocky planets form Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars. • PLANET FORMATION. Outer disk: gas and ice giants. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune • LEFTOVER DEBRIS. Remaining materials forms moon, asteroids, comets and dwarf planets. DIFFERENT HYPOTHESIS IN THE FORMATION OF SOLAR SYSTEM. 1. NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS- The Solar system formed from a rotating cloud of Gas and Dust (solar nebula). As it rotates conservation of angular momentum caused the cloud to flatten into a disk. the Sun formed at the center (DISK) while planets formed from the surrounding materials through acceleration. thus, it explains the coplanar and nearly circular orbit of the planets all planets orbits around the sun on the same flat, disk shaped plane. Proposed by Immanuel Kant in 1755 and Modified by Pierre Simon Laplace in 1756. PROTOPLANET HYPOTHESIS. The Solar system formed from a rotating cloud of Gas and Dust (solar nebula). As it rotates conservation of angular momentum caused the cloud to flatten into a disk. 2. Protoplanet hypothesis. Builds on the nebular model but focuses more on the role of planetesimals which then form into full planets. PROCESS: - Small solid particles stick together through collisions. As collisions takes place, it grows into kilometer-sized planetesimals. Gravitational interactions lead to the formation of planets. Lead to formation of steroids belts and varying planet sizes 3. Encounter hypothesis. States that the sun encountered a rogue star. The encounter led to the removal of hot gas from both stars due to their gravitational interaction. The hot gas then accumulated and formed the planets. The materials from the less dense rogue star formed the other planets, while that from the sun formed the inner planets. 4. TIDAL HYPOTHESIS. (also called the Tidal Theory) is an early scientific idea about how the solar system might have formed. Proposed by James Jeans and Harold Jeffreys. A massive star passed very close to the early Sun. The hot gas then accumulated and formed the planets. The materials from the less dense rogue star formed the other planets, while that from the sun formed the inner planets. Streams of hot gas were drawn out from the Sun in elongated shape. These streams eventually condensed and cooled, forming planets, moons, and other bodies in the solar system. 5. Not accepted theory. Later studies showed the streams of hot gas would disperse too quickly into space instead of condensing into planets. The theory also couldn’t explain the specific orbital patterns and compositions we see today. Modern science favors the Nebular Hypothesis, which explains solar system formation through the collapse of a rotating gas cloud. Earth as the only habitable planet 1. Right Distance from the Sun (The Goldilocks Zone). Not too hot, not too cold — just right for liquid water to exist. 2. Atmosphere with Oxygen. Earth has a mix of gases, especially oxygen, which most living things need to survive. 3. Liquid Water. Earth has oceans, rivers, and rain — water is essential for all life. 4. Magnetic Field. Earth’s magnetic field protects us from harmful solar radiation. 5. Stable Climate. The atmosphere and natural cycles keep temperatures and weather mostly stable over time. 6. Rich Resources. Earth has soil for growing food, minerals, and energy sources that support life and technology. Solar explorations 1. AUGUST 6, 2014. First space craft to orbit a comet (ROSETTA PROBE). Captures the comet photograph. -Comets have coma and tail as it approaches to the sun. 2. JULY 14, 2015. NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft made history by becoming the first spacecraft to fly by Pluto, giving us our first close-up look at the dwarf planet. First time visiting Pluto. Before this, Pluto was just a blurry dot in telescope images. Revealed a surprising world New Horizons showed mountains of ice, smooth plains, and a heart-shaped region called Tombaugh Regio. Changed what we knew. Scientists thought Pluto would be dull and frozen — instead, it turned out to be geologically active and incredibly complex. 3. SEPTEMBER 8, 2016. NASA launched OSIRIS-REx, the first U.S. mission to collect a sample from an asteroid and return it to Earth. Changed what we knew. Scientists thought Pluto would be dull and frozen — instead, it turned out to be geologically active and incredibly complex. OSIRIS-REx stands for: Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security–Regolith Explorer It was sent to study the asteroid Bennu, a near-Earth asteroid about 500 meters wide. Mission Goals: Collect a sample of surface material from Bennu Study the asteroid’s omposition, structure, and history. Mission Goals: Help scientists understand the origins of the solar system. Learn more about asteroids that could impact Earth. 4. August 12, 2018: Launch of NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, the first spacecraft to "touch" the Sun by flying through its outer atmosphere, called the corona. Mission Goal: To study the Sun up close and help scientists understand: How the solar wind (a stream of charged particles) is formed. Why the Sun’s corona is hotter than its surface. What causes solar storms that can affect Earth’s satellites and power grids. 5. November 26, 2018: NASA’s Insight Lander Touches Down on Mars. Its mission was focused on studying the interior of the Red Planet (crust, mantle, and core of the planet). Why the Sun’s corona is hotter than its surface. What causes solar storms that can affect Earth’s satellites and power grids 6. November 26, 2018: NASA’s Insight Lander Touches Down on Mars. Its mission was focused on studying the interior of the Red Planet (crust, mantle, and core of the planet) 7. JULY 30, 2020 PERSEVERANCE PROBE. Perseverance rover as part of the Mars 2020 mission aboard an Atlas V-541 rocket This marked a major step in Mars exploration. 8. DECEMBER 25, 2021-JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE. Investigate exoplanets’ atmospheres for signs of habitability. Observe the first galaxies formed after the Big Bang. Study the formation of stars and planetary systems. Look deeper into the infrared universe than ever before. RESULTS OF EXPLORATION • Evidence of Ancient Life-friendly Environment. • Sedimentary rocks formed in water-rich environments. • Signs of clay and carbonate minerals, which can preserve biosignatures (traces of past life). • Evidence of Ancient Life-friendly Environment. • Sedimentary rocks formed in water-rich environments. • Signs of clay and carbonate minerals, which can preserve biosignatures (traces of past life). • Evidence of Ancient Life-friendly Environment. • Sedimentary rocks formed in water-rich environments. • Signs of clay and carbonate minerals, which can preserve biosignatures (traces of past life).

What is a Plant Cell? Plant cells are eukaryotic cells that vary in several fundamental factors from other eukaryotic organisms. Both plant and animal cells contain a nucleus along with similar organelles. One of the distinctive aspects of a plant cell is the presence of a cell wall outside the cell membrane. Plant Cell Structure Just like different organs within the body, plant cell structure includes various components known as cell organelles that perform different functions to sustain itself. These organelles include: Cell Wall It is a rigid layer which is composed of polysaccharides cellulose, pectin and hemicellulose. It is located outside the cell membrane. It also comprises glycoproteins and polymers such as lignin, cutin, or suberin. The primary function of the cell wall is to protect and provide structural support to the cell. The plant cell wall is also involved in protecting the cell against mechanical stress and providing form and structure to the cell. It also filters the molecules passing in and out of it. The formation of the cell wall is guided by microtubules. It consists of three layers, namely, primary, secondary and the middle lamella. The primary cell wall is formed by cellulose laid down by enzymes. Cell membrane It is the semi-permeable membrane that is present within the cell wall. It is composed of a thin layer of protein and fat. The cell membrane plays an important role in regulating the entry and exit of specific substances within the cell. For instance, cell membrane keeps toxins from entering inside, while nutrients and essential minerals are transported across. Nucleus The nucleus is a membrane-bound structure that is present only in eukaryotic cells. The vital function of a nucleus is to store DNA or hereditary information required for cell division, metabolism and growth. 1. Nucleolus: It manufactures cells’ protein-producing structures and ribosomes. 2. Nucleopore: Nuclear membrane is perforated with holes called nucleopore that allow proteins and nucleic acids to pass through. Plastids They are membrane-bound organelles that have their own DNA. They are necessary to store starch and to carry out the process of photosynthesis. It is also used in the synthesis of many molecules, which form the building blocks of the cell. Some of the vital types of plastids and their functions are stated below: Leucoplasts They are found in the non-photosynthetic tissue of plants. They are used for the storage of protein, lipid and starch. Chromoplasts They are heterogeneous, colored plastid which is responsible for pigment synthesis and for storage in photosynthetic eukaryotic organisms. Chromoplasts have red-, orange- and yellow-colored pigments which provide color to all ripe fruits and flowers. Central Vacuole It occupies around 30% of the cell’s volume in a mature plant cell. Tonoplast is a membrane that surrounds the central vacuole. The vital function of the central vacuole apart from storage is to sustain turgor pressure against the cell wall. The central vacuole consists of cell sap. It is a mixture of salts, enzymes and other substances. Golgi Apparatus They are found in all eukaryotic cells, which are involved in distributing synthesized macromolecules to various parts of the cell. Ribosomes They are the smallest membrane-bound organelles which comprise RNA and protein. They are the sites for protein synthesis, hence, also referred to as the protein factories of the cell. Mitochondria They are the double-membraned organelles found in the cytoplasm of all eukaryotic cells. They provide energy by breaking down carbohydrate and sugar molecules, hence they are also referred to as the “Powerhouse of the cell.” Lysosome Lysosomes are called suicidal bags as they hold digestive enzymes in an enclosed membrane. They perform the function of cellular waste disposal by digesting worn-out organelles, food particles and foreign bodies in the cell. In plants, the role of lysosomes is undertaken by the vacuoles. Chloroplasts It is an elongated organelle enclosed by phospholipid membrane. The chloroplast is shaped like a disc and the stroma is the fluid within the chloroplast that comprises a circular DNA. Each chloroplast contains a green colored pigment called chlorophyll required for the process of photosynthesis. The chlorophyll absorbs light energy from the sun and uses it to transform carbon dioxide and water into glucose. Structure of Chloroplast Chloroplasts are found in all higher plants. It is oval or biconvex, found within the mesophyll of the plant cell. The size of the chloroplast usually varies between 4-6 µm in diameter and 1-3 µm in thickness. They are double-membrane organelle with the presence of outer, inner and intermembrane space. There are two distinct regions present inside a chloroplast known as the grana and stroma. • Grana are made up of stacks of disc-shaped structures known as thylakoids or lamellae. The granum of the chloroplast consists of chlorophyll pigments and are the functional units of chloroplasts. • Stroma is the homogenous matrix which contains grana and is similar to the cytoplasm in cells in which all the organelles are embedded. Stroma also contains various enzymes, DNA, ribosomes, and other substances. Stroma lamellae function by connecting the stacks of thylakoid sacs or grana. The chloroplast structure consists of the following parts: Membrane Envelope It comprises inner and outer lipid bilayer membranes. The inner membrane separates the stroma from the intermembrane space. Intermembrane Space The space between inner and outer membranes. Thylakoid System (Lamellae) The system is suspended in the stroma. It is a collection of membranous sacs called thylakoids or lamellae. The green colored pigments called chlorophyll are found in the thylakoid membranes. It is the sight for the process of light-dependent reactions of the photosynthesis process. The thylakoids are arranged in stacks known as grana and each granum contains around 10-20 thylakoids. Stroma It is a colorless, alkaline, aqueous, protein-rich fluid present within the inner membrane of the chloroplast present surrounding the grana. Grana Stack of lamellae in plastids is known as grana. These are the sites of conversion of light energy into chemical energy. Chlorophyll It is a green photosynthetic pigment that helps in the process of photosynthesis. Functions of Chloroplast Following are the important chloroplast functions: • The most important function of the chloroplast is to synthesize food by the process of photosynthesis. • Absorbs light energy and converts it into chemical energy. • Chloroplast has a structure called chlorophyll which functions by trapping the solar energy and is used for the synthesis of food in all green plants. • Produces NADPH and molecular oxygen (O 2 ) by photolysis of water. • Produces ATP – Adenosine triphosphate by the process of photosynthesis. • The carbon dioxide (CO2) obtained from the air is used to generate carbon and sugar during the Calvin Cycle or dark reaction of photosynthesis. Mitochondria “Mitochondria are membrane-bound organelles present in the cytoplasm of all eukaryotic cells, that produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the main energy molecule used by the cell.” What are Mitochondria? Popularly known as the “Powerhouse of the cell,” mitochondria (singular: mitochondrion) are a double membrane-bound organelle found in most eukaryotic organisms. They are found inside the cytoplasm and essentially function as the cell’s “digestive system.” They play a major role in breaking down nutrients and generating energy-rich molecules for the cell. Many of the biochemical reactions involved in cellular respiration take place within the mitochondria. The term ‘mitochondrion’ is derived from the Greek words “mitos” and “chondrion” which means “thread” and “granules-like”, respectively. It was first described by a German pathologist named Richard Altmann in the year 1890. Structure of Mitochondria • The mitochondrion is a double-membraned, rod-shaped structure found in both plant and animal cell. • Its size ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 micrometers in diameter. • The structure comprises an outer membrane, an inner membrane, and a gel-like material called the matrix. • The outer membrane and the inner membrane are made of proteins and phospholipid layers separated by the intermembrane space. • The outer membrane covers the surface of the mitochondrion and has a large number of special proteins known as porins. Cristae The inner membrane of mitochondria is rather complex in structure. It has many folds that form a layered structure called cristae, and this helps in increasing the surface area inside the organelle. The cristae and the proteins of the inner membrane aid in the production of ATP molecules. The inner mitochondrial membrane is strictly permeable only to oxygen and ATP molecules. A number of chemical reactions take place within the inner membrane of mitochondria. Mitochondrial Matrix The mitochondrial matrix is a viscous fluid that contains a mixture of enzymes and proteins. It also comprises ribosomes, inorganic ions, mitochondrial DNA, nucleotide cofactors, and organic molecules. The enzymes present in the matrix play an important role in the synthesis of ATP molecules. Functions of Mitochondria The most important function of mitochondria is to produce energy through the process of oxidative phosphorylation. It is also involved in the following process: 1. Regulates the metabolic activity of the cell 2. Promotes the growth of new cells and cell multiplication 3. Helps in detoxifying ammonia in the liver cells 4. Plays an important role in apoptosis or programmed cell death 5. Responsible for building certain parts of the blood and various hormones like testosterone and estrogen 6. Helps in maintaining an adequate concentration of calcium ions within the compartments of the cell 7. It is also involved in various cellular activities like cellular differentiation, cell signaling, cell senescence, controlling the cell cycle and in cell growth. Disorders Associated with Mitochondria Any irregularity in the way mitochondria function can directly affect human health, but often, it is difficult to identify because symptoms differ from person to person. Disorders of the mitochondria can be quite severe; in some cases, they can even cause an organ to fail.

Create a multiple choice test (10 questions with answers) from the following text: The Environment The environment is the combination of forces and conditions that surround and influence living and non-living things. Human beings’ environment includes such factors as temperature, food supply and other people that surround them. A plant’s environment may be made up of soil, sunlight, and animals that will eat the plant. A rock’s environment may be made up of seaweed, water and fish. Non-living environmental factors, such as temperature and sunlight, make up the abiotic (non-living) environment. Living organisms such as seaweed and food, make up the biotic environment. Both the abiotic and biotic environments interact to make up the total environment of living and non-living things. Ecology Ecology studies the relationships between living things and their environment. No living thing, plant or animal, lives alone. Every living thing depends in some way upon certain other living and non-living things to survive. The study of ecology increases our understanding of the world and all its creatures. This is crucial because humanity’s survival and well-being depend on relationships that exist on a world-wide basis: changes in distant parts of the world affect us and our environment. One concern of ecologists is the rate at which we are using up natural resources such as coal, gas, and oil. Along with scientists, they are searching for ways to use sunlight and atomic energy for fuel and power as alternative energy sources. Ecology also studies how many living organisms there are on Earth and how they are distributed. It also considers non-living physical factors of the environment, for example the presence of water, as these can influence where organisms decide to live. It is also important to know which organisms share the same environment, as they may need each other to survive. This kind of information helps ecologists to conserve our natural world, protecting the habitat of animals that are in danger of extinction, or trying to reduce pollution and global warming. Ecosystems Ecosystems are biological communities of all living things like plants, animals and organisms in a specific area that interact with each other and with the non-living forms present in their environment. They are the foundations of the biosphere and determine the health of the entire planet’s system. A biosphere is a global ecosystem, containing many different kinds of ecosystems.

Why should mankind explore space? Why should money, time and effort be spent exploring, investigating and researching something with so few apparent benefits? Why should resources be spent on space rather than on conditions and people on Earth? These are questions that, understandably, are very often asked. Perhaps the best answer lies in our genetic makeup as human beings. What drove our distant ancestors to move from the trees into the plains, and on into all possible areas and environments? It appears that we are driven to ensure the success and continuation of not just our own genes, but of the species as a whole. The wider the distribution of a species, the better its chance of survival. Perhaps the best reason for exploring space is this genetic predisposition to expand wherever possible. Nearly every successful civilisation has explored, because by doing so, any dangers in surrounding areas can be identified and prepared for. These might be enemies in neighbouring cultures, physical features of the area, a change in the area which might affect food supplies, or any number of other factors. They all pose a real danger, and all can be made less threatening if certain preparations are made. Without knowledge, we may be completely destroyed by the danger. With knowledge, we can lessen its effects. Exploration also allows minerals and other potential resources to be located. Additional resources are always beneficial when used wisely, and can increase our chances of survival. Even if we have no immediate need of them, they will perhaps be useful later. Resources may be more than physical assets. Knowledge or techniques acquired through exploration, or preparing to explore, filter from the developers into society at large. The techniques may have medical applications which can improve the length or quality of our lives. Techniques may be social, allowing members of society better to understand those within or outside the culture. Better understanding may lead to more efficient use of resources, or a reduction in competition for resources. We have already benefited from other spin-offs, including improvements in earthquake prediction – which has saved many lives – in satellites used for weather forecasting and in communications systems. Even non-stick saucepans and mirrored sunglasses are by-products of technological developments in the space industry! While many resources are spent on what seems a small return, the exploration of space allows creative, brave and intelligent members of our species to focus on what may serve to save us. While space may hold many wonders and explanations of how the universe was formed or how it works, it also holds dangers. The chances of a large comet or asteroid hitting the Earth are small, but it could happen in time. Such strikes in the past may account for the extinction of dinosaurs and other species. Human technology is reaching the point where it might be able to detect the possibility of this happening, and enable us to minimise the damage, or prevent it completely, allowing us as a species to avoid extinction. The danger exists, but knowledge can help human beings to survive. Without the ability to reach out across space, the chance to save ourselves might not exist. In certain circumstances, life on Earth may become impossible: over-population or epidemics, for instance, might eventually force us to find other places to live. While Earth is the only planet known to sustain life, surely the adaptive ability of humans would allow us to inhabit other planets and moons. It is true that the lifestyle would be different, but human life and cultures have adapted in the past and surely could in the future. The more a culture expands, the less chance there is that it will become extinct. Space allows us to expand and succeed: for the sake of everyone on the Earth, now and in the future, space exploration is essential.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes