Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

cannot be answered without also
question
the extent and implications of the
considering
denialism that took hold in South Africa
AIDS
the 1990s and 2000s, where the denialists’
in
are implicated in the deaths of hundreds
views
thousands of people, as described in Box7.3
of
Max Essex, an AIDS expert, quoted in
below.
(2008), stated that history will judge
Lenzer
either as “a nut who is just a tease
Duesberg
the scientific community” or an “enabler to
to
murder” for the deaths of thousands of
mass
victims.
AIDS
was not isolated to South Africa or
Denialism
persists, rightly or wrongly, throughout
AIDS—it
world. It masquerades as scientic scepticism
the
is fuelled by the issues, tensions and
and
of the time and place. How do we protect
agendas
pluralism and the right to dissent, while
scientic
minimizing the fallout of bad science? What
also
should denialists such as Duesberg be
platform
Often the scientic facts in question are
given?
one component—as we see in Chapter 1:
just
may not be enough to change beliefs. TOK
facts
us with tools to balance these tensions,
equips
pluralism and dissent on the one hand,
between
scientic autonomy and responsibility on the
and
to make judgments about the veracity of
other,
claims and their implications.
scientic
questions in the “Practising skills” box
The
follows this case study can be applied to
that
dissidents and leakers everywhere.
denialists,
an example, AIDS denialism is recent
As
to resonate with us emotionally and
enough
but also just old enough to show
intellectually,
communities of scientists wrestle with
how
questions. The University of California,
these
opened an investigation into
Berkeley,
misconduct related to Duesberg’s
academic
but abandoned it in 2010, citing a lack
claims
evidence and that his work is protected by
of
to hold a tenured professorship
continues
Yet, Bruce Charlton, editor of the journal
there.
Hypotheses, which published his 2009
Medical
(when other journals had refused), was
article
largely for refusing to adopt a peerreview
sacked,
structure in response to the controversy.
early as 1996, Science magazine, one of the
As
top academic journals, published an
world’s
investigation into the “Duesberg
eight-page
phenomenon”.
terms: Special News
Search
The Duesberg
Report
in 1996 Richard Horton, editor of the
Also
medical journal The Lancet, and one
respected
the most established Duesberg critics of the
of
was compelled to come to his defence.
time,
deserves to be heard, and the ideological
Duesberg
that he has undergone will remain
assassination
embarrassing testament to the reactionary
an
of modern science. Irrespective of one’s
tendencies
about the validity of some of Duesberg’s
views
one is forced to ask: At a time when
arguments,
ideas and new paths of investigation are
fresh
desperately being sought, how can the AIDS
so
spirit may have compelled Bruce Charlton
That
publish Duesberg’s paper in 2009 and for
to
American to state the following in
Scientific
Pariahs Have Good Ideas” (2007).
“When
[may be] shocked to see Duesberg as an
Readers
in this month’s issue. He is not here because
author
have misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Rather
we
has also developed a novel theory about
Duesberg
origins of cancer … That concept is still on
the
fringe of cancer research, but laboratories are
the
it seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberg
investigating
is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he
surely
(Scientic American 2007)
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
phenomenon
Making connections
Denialism
community aord not to fund Duesberg’s research?
(Horton 1996)
is signicantly right about cancer.
the principle of academic freedom. Duesberg
179