The Myth of Science's Neutrality

SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
Article which explains the myth of science's neutrality...

Quote:
A bioinformatics specialist, writing at The Conversation, takes the myth of science’s neutrality to task. Filipe Gracio of King’s College London is harsh but accurate:

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas.

Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research. (Emphasis added.)

In this sense, science is really a subset of “The Humanities.” What is that? In another piece on The Conversation, philosopher Vincent F. Hendricks of the University of Copenhagen tells us: “Humanities is the study of the human condition and the way we interact with nature, technology, health, art, politics, religion, money and mystery.” There’s no room for “science” to exempt itself from that definition.

Some scientists, though, would make the humanities their domain. The humanities are a subset of psychology, they argue, which is a subset of anthropology, which reduces to biology; that, in turn, reduces to physics.

But who is doing the reducing? Humans, of course. To keep from devouring each other like big fish eating little fish, the science and humanities departments usually occupy separate buildings across campus, holding an uneasy truce. Hendricks thinks the humanities needs to go on offense; Gracio thinks scientists need to own up to their human biases.

Gracio gives examples of bias, such as intellectual property laws governing drug development and recent attempts to patent genes.

He suggests that scientists could be more unbiased, and should be. But Gracio’s own arguments suggest this is highly unlikely. Here are some of them:

Scientists are at the intersection of competing interests: openness and intellectual property ownership.

Scientists seem oblivious to these competing interests. “Ask them about the nature of scientific progress, the funding decisions of their project, the forces behind it or the interests it serves, and you will get a confused look. This is a problem.”

Scientists cannot justify the predictable outcomes of the projects they are involved in.

Scientific outreach is often one-way, viewing “the public” as “merely a recipient vessel which has to understand the decisions made by scientists and research institutions.”

“Ethics and politics are conspicuously absent” as topics in science curricula.

Scientists often do not have a clear view of the wider impact of their research or think about the forces that shape it.”

Full article here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the...es-neutrality/


​
 
Interesting article.

Back when I was still in school I understood that there were two main types of science - theoretical and applied. It was the model of modern science that was taught to me, and that I believed, for years.

We were told that there were chemists working in academia that spent all day doing "pure" science, with nary a concern over funding or coming up with "usable" results. Theirs was research for the sake of research.

Then there were the engineers and chemists that worked on developing new drugs, new petroleum cracking technologies, new anything that the public would immediately benefit from.

The two types of scientists were worlds apart, and it was said their paths never crossed.

After a few years in the corporate world I discovered that the model that had been preached to us was totally wrong. 99% of today's science is application based, and if you think that even in academia you can blithely pick and choose your own research topic you are sadly mistaken.

Science has become the well-paid whore of the pharmaceutical and energy companies. It has been perverted from its pure roots down through the centuries, constantly losing percentage points of "pure" research because of the attendant loss of the patronage system. Just look at what the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project must have felt, when they discovered the real-world results of their theoretical game. And even there, they had a patron - the U.S. government.

The military, especially, stands to benefit from the results of scientific research. It's all about learning new ways to kill more efficiently, but to the blindfolded scientists making those discoveries its purely theoretical.

Science probably ceased being totally neutral back in the Middle Ages.
 
People seem to have so much respect and regard for scientific studies, amazing how slanted they really are, good thing to keep in mind.
 
One of the reasons why science finds it difficult to be entirely neutral is due to funding.

Leonardo da Vinci had a wealthy patron; as did Charles Darwin.

Now, funding comes mainly from Government, so the general public demands the right to obtain results that could be construed as useful, not pure research.

The drug companies are slammed for making too much profit, then criticised for not producing new antibiotics; because the general publics insatiable demand for the current ones has produced resistant bacteria.

Thalidmide is now being used as an anti-leprosy drug. Without research, these drugs just will not be found.

Similarly with space research and particle physics.

When money is tight; governments demand quick results, that can be used to make money, and there are few philanthropists left.....so don't just blame the scientists and their quest for knowledge please...you have to consider the present environment in which they are working too. They are human...most of them anyway...and have to eat; pay their mortgage; pay their taxes....
 
Right you are Vivjen..


[h=1]US Scientists Are Leaving The Country And Taking The Innovation Economy With Them[/h]US Scientists Are Leaving The Country And Taking The Innovation Economy With Them

by Janet Rae-Dupree at Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetra...-and-taking-the-innovation-economy-with-them/

"SNIP...............................


Federal funding cuts, and the insidious damage caused just since March by federal budget sequestration, have forced nearly one in five U.S. scientists to consider moving overseas to continue their research.

While that immediate threat of a brain drain is alarming enough, it’s the long-term effects of sagging federal research funding that pose the greatest threat to our very survival. The cause-and-effect is simple: If Congress continues to refuse to fund the future, the decline of America’s much-touted “innovation economy” will accelerate fatally.




I also ran across this article about federal funds going to schools that teach creationism....this gripes me to no end..


http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ed_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html


There is a hostile feeling for anything science in this country that also contributes to the leaving of scientist......just more dumbing down of America, IMHO.
 
I agree with most of everything that has been said here. Funding exists mainly for research that will produce a marketable product or an innovative military weapon or device. That is just the reality of the situation. I would imagine it is difficult thing for many scientists to accept.
 
Read awhile back that pure scientific research had sunk from experimentation resulting in discovery to the manipulation of collected data to prove an already decided upon result.
 
That Guy said:
It's the manipulation of data to prove an already decided upon results that really bothers me.
Click to expand...

You know that you can do almost anything with statistics.....same thing. I take most things with the proverbial pinch of salt...
 
CeeCee said:
I still would rather take my chances with science and healthy eating...holistic or "natural" isn't proven either so it's down to what gives you results.
Click to expand...

Some of them have been proven - it's just that there are just as many charlatans in the alternative field, as there are in the "regular" medical field.

Thing is, most holistic modalities started off the same way Western medicine did - trial and error. Both developed over the years in increasingly "scientific" ways.

I also question the frame of reference of any article.
Click to expand...

A wise move ...
 
the confusion comes from regarding technology as science, the knowledge and discoveries coming from true scientific methodology create technologies, that are confused with science. The Medical Arts are not science, nor will they ever be. In any chosen modeling system only certain facets of the problem are brought to light. If the entire model represented the actual artifact, you would be looking at the original and in all knowledge about it would be known, a violation of Gödel's theorem, and no need for the model. So manipulation of the data is a must to bring out different aspects. It is the ignorance of the readers knowledge of the model inputs that is the problem.

some of the most advanced scientific achievements exist in the most simplest forms. Take Velcro. People use it every day, but few can explain what is made of, how it is made. this is technology. Even fewer can explain the reason and theory, the science, that makes it work.


Science is an area that falls behind football games, parades, just about everything in interest, and those people who are good at it, will simply keep it in their little group. Occasionally stuff leaks out and somebody incorporates it into something to makes some money. these somebodies are called engineers, do not confuse them with scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top