2 ms·

So why didn't scientists come out in droves and push back on the anti-egg movement?

by oh_sigh 8y ago

toasterlovin 8y ago
Because there's no research grants to be had by going against the prevailing fashionable beliefs in the field.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  It's my understanding that disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field. Also, you don't need research grants to show that there is no research that shows a causal link between two things, which is what the poster above claimed was the problem with the anti-egg movement
  - firmgently 8y ago
    "disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field" It doesn't necessarily follow that people will gamble grant money on the off-chance that you might turn out to be that superstar.
  - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
    Disproving stuff is a good way to "fan the flames" of your career but you have to have some reputation in the first place. Otherwise you're a quack amateur which doesn't work well with others, just like you'd be in any other field if you picked fights with the wrong people too soon. It also turns out that validating people's preconceptions and getting grants is a great way to build credibility via "social proof". The truly skilled PIs can develop a popular idea, make it accepted in the field, then dramatically disprove it once the "bad" researchers start piling on! These masters can usually be identified by massive grants, sending students places(careers) to build relationships/incur debt of favors over years, writing bestseller books (ghostwritten) etc. And these are the people whose ideas everyone repeats.
COGlory 8y ago
Some did. I worked in a lab for the woman whose papers were instrumental in getting the anti-egg recommendation reversed. There was a lot more money on the other side, unfortunately.
jdietrich 8y ago
To a first approximation, nobody actually cares what scientists say. Scientists can publish press releases and hound journalists until they're blue in the face, but they're not getting on the news unless what they're saying fits into a pre-determined media narrative. They're little more than a useful prop, like the flashy "scientific" graphics in moisturizer commercials. Fox News will wheel out anyone with a PhD who is willing to cast doubt on climate change, Vox will dredge up someone who'll say that NASCAR gives you cancer and we all end up less informed than grade-schoolers. Scientists are largely powerless to "push back" against anything, because they don't control the institutions that disseminate information.

So why didn't scientists come out in droves and push back on the anti-egg movement?

toasterlovin 8y ago

Because there's no research grants to be had by going against the prevailing fashionable beliefs in the field.

oh_sigh 8y ago
It's my understanding that disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field. Also, you don't need research grants to show that there is no research that shows a causal link between two things, which is what the poster above claimed was the problem with the anti-egg movement
- firmgently 8y ago
  "disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field" It doesn't necessarily follow that people will gamble grant money on the off-chance that you might turn out to be that superstar.
- xkcd-sucks 8y ago
  Disproving stuff is a good way to "fan the flames" of your career but you have to have some reputation in the first place. Otherwise you're a quack amateur which doesn't work well with others, just like you'd be in any other field if you picked fights with the wrong people too soon. It also turns out that validating people's preconceptions and getting grants is a great way to build credibility via "social proof". The truly skilled PIs can develop a popular idea, make it accepted in the field, then dramatically disprove it once the "bad" researchers start piling on! These masters can usually be identified by massive grants, sending students places(careers) to build relationships/incur debt of favors over years, writing bestseller books (ghostwritten) etc. And these are the people whose ideas everyone repeats.

COGlory 8y ago

Some did. I worked in a lab for the woman whose papers were instrumental in getting the anti-egg recommendation reversed. There was a lot more money on the other side, unfortunately.

jdietrich 8y ago

To a first approximation, nobody actually cares what scientists say. Scientists can publish press releases and hound journalists until they're blue in the face, but they're not getting on the news unless what they're saying fits into a pre-determined media narrative. They're little more than a useful prop, like the flashy "scientific" graphics in moisturizer commercials. Fox News will wheel out anyone with a PhD who is willing to cast doubt on climate change, Vox will dredge up someone who'll say that NASCAR gives you cancer and we all end up less informed than grade-schoolers. Scientists are largely powerless to "push back" against anything, because they don't control the institutions that disseminate information.