> doing your own research Reading online articles is not doing your own research > Even if you are a practicing scientist you won't even get a chance to be he

> doing your own research Reading online articles is not doing your own research > Even if you are a practicing scientist you won't even get a chance to be heard because the science is settled and wrong think is dangerous! This is an oversimplification of a complex situation. Redoing established work doesn't get the same level of funding as new work. New work that ignores the existence of others work doesn't get funding for failing to prove why it is necessary. You can get funding for unique ideas you just won't get it for say "proving vaccines cause autism" unless you can have a paper idea that deals with the mountains of evidence that shows that link doesn't exist. > How can anyone be critical of science if it is already considered settled? There is a difference between being critical based on evidence and being critical based on ideas. "I disagree" isn't a reason to dismiss existing science. Similarly a singular study with small sample sizes isn't important compared to a multitude of studies with the opposite conclusion.