Science: Who do we trust?

This is a continuation of a comment made by Cara on 'JCR Smoking Bans'. I was initially going to leave it as a comment, but I feel that it warrants a whole separate discussion. :)

Who do we trust on scientific issues? Are the science sceptics right?

Perceptions of science risk, and common sense are often wrong. They are developed by the people, the media, the spin doctors, and do not rely on much fact.

If you read any red-top newspaper, you will most likely find some article about some 'fantastic new treatment' that'll save our lives, cure Alzheimer's, and wipe out HIV. Once you read further into the article, often they will qualify their headline (which is what the TV will report on) by stating that the research has been mice and maybe it's showing a small preventative measure with a specific type of the disease.

If you read the headlines for a year, you could easily be lead to believe that we've cured the world ills. (This is not confined to red-tops, go and pick up a new scientist - a leading 'scientific' periodical, non peer reviewed, it does the same.)

This is often due to different interests at stake: the media want to sell news; the scientists want publicity; the public crave information. They meet half way, and produce a sensational half truth for the general public to digest. (Of course, it would be unreasonable for the public to be able to directly research the drug, as the people doing the research are highly trained experts in their fields, and papers are a very difficult research material for the untrained.)

- I would like to point out here that this mis-mash of news is probably the best alternative. The public need to be informed, and often it's better to try to understand a half truth, than no truth at all. Secondly, scientists need incentives, exposure, and money in order to conduct their research. A few wrongs here and there are outweighed by so many rights.

Science should be right, and should be what we follow. However, as a scientist who has to read paper after paper, and conducts research, I am often amazed at the politics that is involved.

To name but some of the politics involved in science. You can look no further than the mainstream press and the recent scandal about cloning in Korea. There the desires and wishes of one researcher dominated the lab, and lead them to fabricate results. (At least this is how the press reported it.)

This in turn had serious repercussions: it has increased our scepticism of scientific knowledge; it has lead to a further mistrust of the research process; it has harmed the image of cloning, this was a specific form of cloning, and it may go on to harm further grants and research into very beneficial cloning. - Incidentally, this has been perpetuated by the media covering the story, and suitable punishment in the scientific community has been dealt out.

This is but a small insight into the world of science research. In order to conduct research, you must often find someone to supervise you, they must in turn be funded by someone, and they do their work in a lab run by someone else. Who's interests are actually best represented when you are approved to do your research; are you merely just keeping the lab alive by subverting your original research aims in order to hit the press, gain attention, and thus get more money? What motivates a scientist to do research, and while researching how do their motivation, aims and morals change?

One of the key ideas behind science is that we aim to try to explore our environment, our universe and try to explain and exploit theses findings to the benefit of others. Most scientists are wonderful people, bright, enthusiastic and with the aims of the public at heart. - It is worth noting that these aims are the perceived aims of the public, and may not actually be true, I'm sure that's a whole other topic.

Science is also empirical, we learn by experience, and thus we learn by our mistakes and our successes. Life would be boring without the mistakes, and many 'mistakes' have lead to advances elsewhere. If we obtained the answer straight away, there would be no thirst for knowledge, and no development of tangential ideas.

These mistakes are often misreported and sensationalised by the press. We as the general public gain a sliver of the truth, and our 'common sense' or collective wisdom is realigned to accommodate this change.

Our freedom, especially in this very industrial age, relies on the advances in science and technology. Our freedom also relies on our understanding of what is being researched and whether it benefits society. There is a certain degree of perception involved here, especially on the concept of freedom in society. In our democratic society, we have a very limited democratic right to chose what is currently under investigation. We may guide the scientists by expressing talking about science; reading the articles in papers about science; expressing outrage; expressing support; and giving money and support to causes we believe in.

- This is a critique of the scientific community, I do realise that it offers limited solutions. I feel that science is the UK is well maintained, well understood, and a benefit to society. We shouldn't give up thinking about the implications of science, and as laymen try to understand what the geniuses in white coats are up to!