Where is the center of the solar system? Is the universe expanding, shrinking or remaining static? What really causes ulcers? Is the Earth getting warmer? Often, scientific examination can help us definitively answer important questions. Sometimes, it seems only to fuel the debate.
Take, for example, the legal battle raging between Big Sugar and Big High Fructose Corn Syrup. Jury selection in the case began in early November in a Los Angeles courtroom.
On one hand, HFCS manufacturers argue that the sugar folks have waged a disinformation campaign for years, fostering the perception that HFCS is a health hazard. Sugar is sugar, they argue, and too much regular old refined sugar is just as bad for you as too much corn syrup. Not so, say the sugar folks. They object to an advertising campaign by the corn syrup people that basically said sugar and corn syrup are the same to your body. The two are not the same, sugar producers say.
Both sides accuse the other of basing their claims on murky science and disinformation. It’s interesting that they’re both willing to have a jury settle their dispute, much of which hinges on competing science. Some of the science involved, however, is not in dispute.
Sugar comes from sugar beets or sugar cane, and it is sucrose — one glucose unit attached to one fructose unit. As soon as sucrose hits the stomach and small intestine, the bond between the two units breaks. Rigorously stated, sugar is 50 percent fructose. High fructose corn syrup is made from cornstarch. The final product is a mixture of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose dissolved in water.
“The actual science here is the question of whether there’s a critical difference between eating something that’s 50 percent fructose versus 55 percent fructose,” explains Dr. Alan Sentman, Polymer Solutions’ applied chemistry and spectroscopy lab manager and expert. “Given the difficulties with performing human studies, the jury may find both sides presenting data which appears equally compelling, but with opposing conclusions.”
On the other hand, Alan says, “Business is cut-throat.” It does appear that both sides have employed marketing tactics to emphasize the perceived risks and negative aspects of their competitors’ products, all while de-emphasizing the potential negative health impacts of their own.
Sometimes science is the source of a debate or conflict. Remember Galileo versus the Roman Catholic Church on just what celestial body really is the center of the solar system? At the time, Galileo’s support of the idea that the Earth orbited the sun was controversial and unproven. Today, science has proved over and over again that he was right.
Other times, science can resolve a conflict, as both sides in the sugar/syrup debate are likely hoping it will. It’s not uncommon for Polymer Solutions scientists to use scientific research to settle a debate or legal dispute.
In one case, our scientists were asked to render an opinion for a lawsuit in which a company alleged a former employee had stolen the company’s proprietary coating formulation and was selling it as his own. Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry and Gas Chromatography, we were able to determine that the two formulates were the same, and our client — the employer — won its case.
Not every scientific disagreement is that clear cut — witness the on-going debate over climate change. What’s more, scientific debate doesn’t happen in a vacuum; people’s opinions, emotions and experiences shape such debates.
In the end, scientific research can unearth facts that support or disprove theories. Humans must still decide what to do with the information science provides.