Sir, - Science has always been influenced by ideology in its selection of topics and its interpretation of them. However, I have seen few more blatant examples of exploiting science to justify one's ideology than Dr William Reville's column of October 26th.
He claims that there is evidence from "the science of psychology" which suggests that the disadvantaged should help themselves and accept "self-responsibility". On the basis of the "psychological principle" that it is better to praise and encourage rather than criticise, he wants the media and other commentators to refrain from criticism of the middle classes and to stop making the middle classes feel bad about "hogging the lion's share of society's wealth".
Dr Reville is entitled to his right-wing opinions, but not entitled to claim that what he is spouting is science. As a psychologist I could find a long list of studies to support my view that poverty and disadvantage demoralise, de-motivate and disempower. Social inequity is not just about the unfair distribution of the benefits of society; it can also place severe limits on the individual's psychological ability to take responsibility for himself or herself. It is the nature of "the science of psychology" that one can pick and choose from an array of complex and sometimes conflicting findings and that a great deal of careful debate and balanced assessment is needed to weigh the value of these findings for any particular context. It is essential, therefore, in such a process of negotiation to be explicit about one's own values and biases, in so far as one can.
Dr Reville's personal views would be largely irrelevant if not for the fact that he claims, without a flicker of insight, that he is talking about "science", not his own conservative world view. He has the privilege of a regular column in your newspaper under the headline "Science Today" - this, in itself, imparts authority. He writes at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor in this country is widening and when we are waiting to see whether Mr McCreevy and the Government are willing to do anything about that reality.
Perhaps Dr Reville should apply to join the ranks of your opinion writers or at very least steer clear of the complexities and pitfalls of the social sciences and stick to his molecules. - Yours etc., Sheila Green,
Department of Psychology,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.