Post-truth and anthropogenic climate change: asking the right questions

The connection between climate skepticism and climate denial and what has become known as post‐truth culture has become the subject of much interest in recent years. This has lead to intense debates among scientists and activists about how to respond to this changed cultural context and the ways in which it is held to obstruct wider acceptance of climate science. Drawing on research in the sociology of scientific knowledge, science and technology studies, social psychology, and philosophical reflections on evidential reasoning, it is argued that these debates are focused on the wrong topic. The idea of post‐truth implies that a once‐straightforward linear relationship between scientific evidence and decision‐making has been eroded. But such an idealized relationship never existed. The proper role of scientific evidence in informing belief and action in response to the prospect of anthropogenic climate change needs reconsideration. A key part of this is to make uncertainties related to processes within the climate system and their potential outcomes into the main focus of public discussion around climate change. Instead of keeping the focus of debate on how to “get the science right,” such a reframing makes precautionary questions about the prospect of unacceptable losses into the main focus. This brings a variety of ethical and political values into the debate, perhaps creating better conditions for a minimal consensus about what to do

Value of a DNA probe assay (Gen-Probe) compared with that of culture for diagnosis of gonococcal infection

The Gen-Probe PACE 2 system for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GP), which uses a chemiluminescently labeled DNA probe, was compared with conventional culture as the method of reference. A total of 1,750 specimens were collected from 496 females and 623 males visiting the outpatient clinic of the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Department of the Westeinde Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands, during the year 1991. The prevalences of gonorrhea culture-positive men and women were 14.9 and 7.7%, respectively. The overall positive rate was 8.7%. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of GP were 97.1, 99.1, 90.6, and 99.8%, respectively. A total of 12 of 13 patients with positive GP results and negative cultures may have had a gonococcal infection, a conclusion based on clinical symptoms, positive methylene blue smears, and high relative light unit ratios. The DNA probe test can be useful as a suitable screening and diagnostic test for gonorrheal infection in men and women. An advantage of using this DNA probe technique is that simultaneous testing for Chlamydia trachomatis of the same specimen is possible. We also examined whether (all) rRNA had disappeared after adequate treatment for gonococcal and/or chlamydial infection in 30 patients. None of those positive patients showed a positive result in the DNA probe assay after treatment.</jats:p