3 ms·
There are a ton of problems with how science is done and most of it comes down to the same root cause: greed. You have corporations buying off scientists (if n
by autoexec 5y ago
There are a ton of problems with how science is done and most of it comes down to the same root cause: greed. You have corporations buying off scientists (if not to rig experiments/falsify results, then to bury unfavorable findings), journals willing to publish any garbage with little (if any) meaningful review, then media companies willing to turn that junk science into a click-bait friendly press release for a company or industry.
The corruption of science into advertising and science by press conference is a huge problem, but it's not the fault of science itself. It's the institutions we've built around science that are responsible. The way we choose to handle funding, the universities, and the journals, these are all systems that were created and they are all systems that can be replaced or reformed. The underlying framework for scientific observation and testing are still solid and remains the best way to further our understanding the world we live in, but we need accountability and regulations in place to keep the output high quality.
It's the same issue we have with medicine. Not enough accountability and oversight has allowed for things like doctors taking kick backs from pharmaceutical companies (the opioid crisis was a good example, but it's been going on for ages) and people like Stella Immanuel who can tell her patients their illness is caused by demon sperm and alien DNA but she still gets to keep her license to practice medicine.
Without regulation and oversight every system is vulnerable to corruption and failure. It doesn't mean you should throw away the system, it means we aren't doing our job to keep it functioning.
- Smoosh 5y agoI suppose that over time, science changed from a hobby for the wealthy to a source of wealth for companies.
- autoexec 5y agoThe sad thing is that there was always money to be made by having a greater understanding of our world and developing new technologies. Investing in research pays off very well, but it requires long term thinking. If you only care about next quarter's profits and growth you aren't going to make that kind of investment. Not when you can manipulate science today and get a lot of money right now. 3M and DuPont poisoned the world and even their own children with PFAS for decades after they knew it was harmful because they couldn't resist the money they'd make doing it. For a lot of people, no amount of wealth is ever enough.
- lobocinza 5y agoIt's not only greed, but corporatism. People on institutions are entrenched and will defend their own interests even when it's immoral and stupid. And at the end of the day most will have zero doubts about their integrity and rightness because the human mind is amazing and allow for a large degree of cognitive dissonance.
- mlindner 5y ago> You have corporations buying off scientists (if not to rig experiments/falsify results, then to bury unfavorable findings), journals willing to publish any garbage with little (if any) meaningful review, then media companies willing to turn that junk science into a click-bait friendly press release for a company or industry. What reason does a corporation have to pay for science that they know will not work? That's self-defeating. At best it's only advantageous in the very short term before you try to actually sell a product that doesn't actually work. (One more reasons these absurd pre-revenue SPACs are horrendous.)
- ehvatum 5y agoHypothetically: Let’s say you manufacture Volkswagens, and your small engine diesels include a defeat device that allows your cars to pass emissions tests by enabling pollution controls only during emission tests. When the world learns of your treachery, you sponsor scientific research in which monkeys are exposed to your modern VW diesel tail pipe emissions and also model year 1990s Ford diesel fumes, to show that you’re really pretty harmless compared to old pickup trucks. Your research is trash, the conclusions meaningless, and scientists cash your checks. Hypothetically: you manufacture cigarettes.. Hypothetically: your fracking is injecting heavy metals into my groundwater.. Hypothetically: you manufacture margarine.. I mean. For God’s sake. Think for just a moment.
- philwelch 5y agoAre we allowed to mention pharmaceuticals in this context or not?
- mmsimanga 5y agoWith current Covid pandemic. I could be wrong but it seems most studies are looking at effectiveness of vaccines and little to nothing on effectiveness of natural immunity. I say this as someone who was one of the first to get vaccinated. Not that I am saying the pharmaceutical companies sponsored the studies. So to answer your question sometimes it is what is not funded that is probably more telling.