3 ms·

Science is uncertain endeavor. Especially when it comes to phenomena / events that occur within a certain region of spacetime scale close to what we experience

Science is uncertain endeavor. Especially when it comes to phenomena / events that occur within a certain region of spacetime scale close to what we experience. But people tend to not like uncertainty. They like the word to be predictable. The main type of science denialism I see is people ignoring the error bars / qualifications on scientific claims. Part of this is done by press offices and the media trying to generate buzz and prestige. Another more cynical group of people do it for profit. Typically the people I see who cry about censoring of science are the same type of people who cry about free speech when they get banned from a board. If you are a tenured professor you can research pretty much whatever. Just don’t expect a big time journal or conference to broadcast your work if it’s not addressing a “hot” topic. But at the end of the day that’s fine right? We scientists do this for the love of scientific inquiry, not money and status right? /s

JamesBarney 4y ago
You can really only research what you can get the IRB to approve, what you can get grant approval for and what data people will give you access to. And most of those decisions are made in heavily politicized process.
- pfisherman 4y ago
  IRB approval is not a super high bar if you are not doing something like giving people a research chemical, doing surgeries, or inflicting psychological distress. Just make sure the study is aligned with the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice. In terms of grants / funding that is more of an economic issue. How do we allocate limited resources? There is a bit of grantsmanship that comes into play here, but that’s the game. The focus on ROI is in no small part a consequence of the numerous hit pieces crying about stuff like, “They spent X dollars on understanding the mating rituals of honey bees!?! Government waste!!!” But I agree that these decisions about what we as a society want to fund are inherently political. Data access is a little more tricky. I generally take the stance that access is at the pleasure of the data owners / stewards, but they are also bound by the terms of the consent. So there is no small amount of risk that some of the subjects might get mad about how their data is being used and sink the whole ship. And this is probably not a bad thing in my opinion. I take the extreme view that subjects should have more control over their data than they currently have - probably as a reaction against the normalization of surveillance capitalism.
  - quadhome 4y ago
    Just make sure the study is aligned with the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice. Isn’t that what the article is decrying? “Value Free or Value-laden Science” None of the items listed— especially justice— are intrinsic to science.
    - pfisherman 4y ago
      They are if you don’t want to be a modern Dr. Mengele. These principles are outlined in the Belmont Report — one of the foundations of ethical / responsible conduct of research.[0] Please give it a look to see how these concepts are defined. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report

JamesBarney 4y ago

You can really only research what you can get the IRB to approve, what you can get grant approval for and what data people will give you access to. And most of those decisions are made in heavily politicized process.

pfisherman 4y ago
IRB approval is not a super high bar if you are not doing something like giving people a research chemical, doing surgeries, or inflicting psychological distress. Just make sure the study is aligned with the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice. In terms of grants / funding that is more of an economic issue. How do we allocate limited resources? There is a bit of grantsmanship that comes into play here, but that’s the game. The focus on ROI is in no small part a consequence of the numerous hit pieces crying about stuff like, “They spent X dollars on understanding the mating rituals of honey bees!?! Government waste!!!” But I agree that these decisions about what we as a society want to fund are inherently political. Data access is a little more tricky. I generally take the stance that access is at the pleasure of the data owners / stewards, but they are also bound by the terms of the consent. So there is no small amount of risk that some of the subjects might get mad about how their data is being used and sink the whole ship. And this is probably not a bad thing in my opinion. I take the extreme view that subjects should have more control over their data than they currently have - probably as a reaction against the normalization of surveillance capitalism.
- quadhome 4y ago
  Just make sure the study is aligned with the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice. Isn’t that what the article is decrying? “Value Free or Value-laden Science” None of the items listed— especially justice— are intrinsic to science.
  - pfisherman 4y ago
    They are if you don’t want to be a modern Dr. Mengele. These principles are outlined in the Belmont Report — one of the foundations of ethical / responsible conduct of research.[0] Please give it a look to see how these concepts are defined. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report