I'M A child of the 80s. So I wasn't around back on July 20, 1969. But I hear it was a pretty fantastic day. The day that man first set foot on the moon.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Over the last couple of weeks, with the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, I've really enjoyed listening to people re-living that moment. The excitement, the wonder, the awe. It takes a heck of a lot of science, technology, engineering and maths to get a man (or two) safely onto the moon and back, and I'm so glad to see the men and women who made it happen being celebrated.
But there is one thing that has really bugged me about the anniversary. It's the amount of air-time that's been given to conspiracy theorists and moon-landing deniers.
Whether it's TV, radio, newspapers, or the world wide web, for each story celebrating the moon landing it seems there's another dedicated to discussing how it was all a conspiracy.
Of course, this isn't unique to the moon landing - we see the same thing across all areas of science.
Whether it's those who believe that the Earth is flat, or that there are aliens and UFOs hidden in Area 51, or that homeopathy really works.
When we talk about vaccines, we see anti-vaccination groups being given coverage.
When we talk about climate change, we see climate change deniers being given a stage. When we talk about genetic technologies, we see the anti-GMO brigade put front and centre.
As a scientist, this is just so frustrating. On the one hand, we have evidence, collected through decades (or more) of systematic research. On the other hand, we have baseless theory and speculation.
When we give both these sides equal air-time we're saying that both sides have equally compelling arguments.
When we give science deniers an equal platform, we add an air of legitimacy to their claims.
I'll happily argue with you over whether pineapple belongs on pizza (it does), or which Avenger is the best (it's Ironman, FYI). But as a scientist, you won't find me participating in public debate over whether, for example, vaccines are safe, or climate change is real.
Because these things aren't up for debate. The evidence is there.
I know the old saying that there are two sides to every story. But perhaps sometimes, just maybe, one of those sides really isn't worth telling.
Dr Mary McMillan is a lecturer at the School of Science and Technology, University of New England
