To ask to what extent you trust science?

Who are you asking?
How many people are you asking?
How confident would you be in the findings?
Can it be repeated?
Who didn't you ask?
You didn't get the answer you expected. Are you going to tell us this?
Do you think the answer will be published correctly or will it be sensationalised?

Meant to write -

It depends who is funding the science.

Independent research OR funding from the likes of evil such as Gates and Soros.

It depends who is funding the science.

Independent research funding from the likes of evil such as Gates and Soros.

There is obviously bad and lazy research out there and also financial motives that have an impact on results. I don’t trust people entirely and they are the ones carrying out the science. Having said that, I think lots of science is brilliant. Just wandering around an old graveyard makes you so grateful for scientific advances in medicine.

We aren’t “loosing” anything, OP. “Traditional wisdom” that works is still with us.

It’s like that old joke - what do you call alternative medicine that’s been proven to work? Medicine.

We learn why things work rather than ditching them just because our grandmothers believed in them. Science isn’t about embracing the new and rejecting the old.

I ‘trust’ Science in the same way I trust Mathematics - a way of describing, understanding and exploring the universe.

As information changes or becomes better understood, so we adapt to accommodate that.

Objectively (scientifically!) the OP's post demonstrate that 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.' Also her self description ('work in' high tech STEM) is misleading. Some posters thought she was a radiologist which she eventually admitted she wasn't - thank goodness - because of the extent of ignorance of scientific method she showed. People who make statements about topics which are way above their understanding, especially if they preface them with a sort of validation of their qualifications can actually be very harmful to others who might hear them and believe what they say. I wonder what her actual job is - and if her employers know about her dodgy judgement.

But using leeches to treat wounds is an example of science. People tried it, it worked, so they kept doing it.

That's all science is really, coming up with an idea, trying it, and recording the results.

Science is just the formalisation of that process.

Not having collected long-term data of a new drug doesn't prevent them being released though, that wasn't some kind of hard and fast rule relaxed just for the Covid vaccines.
For instance it realised a few years after it was put on the market that the injection I take due to having osteoporosis actually puts patients at higher risk of spinal fractures if they delay a dose or decide to discontinue. There is now a rebound process involving a relay drug and bone marker testing needed to safely come off it. Patients are often not told any of this when it's being prescribed(not even told when they decide to stop taking it either in some cases) - even if the reason for offering it is because they can't actually take the type of drug needed to relay off safely so they are completely stuck if the injection causes side effects and they need to come off it. It's also been realised it puts you at higher risk of infection which is an issue given how many prescribed it are elderly

You're not wrong OP. But Mumsnet is full of midwits who TRUST THE SCIENCE. Even when it's wildly to their detriment like the current fashion for unnecessary childbirth interventions.

On the positive side I think there is a movement towards more scepticism and holding Big Pharma etc to account - see RFK Jr in the US. But the regime compliant Mumsnet isn't going to be fertile ground for this.

The knowledge gained from research on animals informs the newer technologies. The success and failures/side effects of previous medications informs the development of newer, more effective medications with fewer intolerable side effects - such as biologics and immunotherapy.

Thalidomide is still a hugely useful medication and the discovery of molecular chirality affecting those children, along with it making clear that the then current methods of testing and theories were not sufficient for safety, have informed further developments and fewer unexpected problems.

The knowledge gained from x-rays has gone on to inform knowledge of cancer actions, of the body, of construction, joint replacement, diagnosis of pathologies, nutrition, improved security and the development of other forms of imaging.

Science builds upon knowledge. Scientific research is a constant process of gaining greater understanding, of making improvements to methods, of data, of mathematics.

People as a whole cannot be trusted, but Science in itself is intrinsically impartial. Which is where ethics come in - something also due to experience.

I’ll add that one of my pet hates is news headlines of “scientists say that…” which scientists? Are they even relevant to that subject?
This is further demonstrated when you see “Dr Jones” speaking up about how something conventional is terrible and you should use something else - then when you look at who Dr Jones is you find they have a completely unrelated doctorate (if that), which gives them no more authority on a subject than the average person on the street.

I put YABU because there is a whole academic discipline which looks into this subject which you could have referred to (STS). Most quantitative surveys put trust in science worldwide at about 72%. Try looking at The Wellcome Trust and Ipsos Mori for this.
If you are more interested in the philosophy of science, which it seems you are, you could start with Paul Feyerabend's Against Method for stuff which talks about the epidemic superiority (or not as far as he is concerned) of science.
Trust essentially comes down to whether science 'works' for us or not alongside our perceptions of the self interestedness of the scientists concerned and our general sense that authority can be trusted.
You may also want to read up on the sociology of science (Bruno Latour, Brian Wynne, Robert Merton).

It is not in big Pharma’s interest to support research into medicinal marijuana, or the potential of B-17 to cure cancer, when they can’t make any money out of it.

Firstly, you know that there are now many "big pharma" companies whose sole purpose is to develop and bring to market cannabis and cannabis-related medicines? Secondly, there is plenty of potential financial benefit if it were found that vitamin B17, which I assume is what you mean, cured cancer, for companies that sell dietary supplements. And there have been multiple controlled clinical trials of laetrile for cancer as well as a gold-standard Cochrane review.

There are certainly challenges with the pharmaceutical funding model, and the lack of funding for diseases that affect poor people in the global south is certainly one of them, but the above two are not.

I trust the scientific process as a tool for discovery and knowledge as much as I ever did (studied STEM at university) but:

• I have less faith that the current scientific establishment always conducts science in a rigorous, neutral sense - as @mindutopia puts it, I'm more aware of it as a social process. For example, I've followed a lot of research into gender medicine and it's so obvious how social opinions influence the results, compare European vs US findings for example. Institutional capture is a serious concern for me
• I am more cynical about "scientism", as in, cargo-cult following of anything with lab coat branding. It's very popular now to throw out random popular science graphs which can be incredibly misleading but look "sciency"
• "Follow the science!" is just a meme to me at this point. Science doesn't give instructions on what to do, it only (hopefully) lights up the landscape so we can choose a path forward. There are/were many considerations to balance with big issues like the pandemic, the environment etc, there is no "the science says we have to shut down the economy". This isn't a disrespect for science, just an acknowledgement of competing interests.

There is nothing wrong with science per se. There is a big problem with how people package, profit and sell it.

Animal testing- cheap.
Pesticides- bigger profits for farmers.
Chemo, medicines, female contraceptives - cheapest products for the minimum viable service
Big Pharma - aims for profit not altruistic medical solutions (noone funds drug research for altruism)

One of the beauties of science of 200 years ago was peoples interest in taking a wide view, and incorporating ideas from a number of disciplines to try and build up a holistic picture. They also were self funded often so less agenda driven. Obviously, there were all sorts of other problems and pitfalls. Not least of all ethical.

Science today can be fundamentally flawed because people are so narrowly focused on one tiny element of for example the entire functioning of a disease. For example cancer. You have scientists just focused on one particular theory, therapy, or mechanism. And they are in the payroll of big Pharma. It is not in big Pharma’s interest to support research into medicinal marijuana, or the potential of B-17 to cure cancer, when they can’t make any money out of it. It costs $1 billion to get a drug from research to market so they need things that will pay back.

By contrast a disease, parasitic, like leishmaniasis which is endemic in South America hasn’t had a cure worked on for something like 50 or 60 years because there is no money in finding a cure. Albeit there would be a great deal less human suffering.

Universities are largely owned by corporates. So research scientists regularly complain about not being able to go down the routes they want to because it would offend the corporate donor by acting against their corporate interests.

We are seeing a huge backlash against vaccines because when you start digging into them, the efficacy is minimal. All the gains in the 20th century against disease were about public sanitation. So when you look at things like the reduction in measles, the actual vaccine barely makes a difference. And outbreaks regularly occur in highly vaccinated populations. Same with whooping cough. As for the efficacy of the flu vaccine, despite 2/3 of elderly people taking it it still made no dent in annual numbers of deaths.

Combine that with the fact there is an unexplained uptick now in sudden deaths in healthy ages of populations, evidence of fraud from companies like Pfizer who are now being sued in the US around the Covid vaccines, and we have a perfect storm brewing.

Trust in science . Scientists are always trying to disprove others theories therefore its as robust as you get at the time

I’m a scientist. I have a lot of faith in science, but I’m conscious that it’s a social process and one that is impacted by profit margins and politics and ethics. It’s not perfect, but I’m bloody grateful for it.

In the field in which I work, in the lifetime of my career (20 years so far), people have gone from being sentenced to almost certain early death within 10 years to living relatively normal lives because of scientific advances.

I am also on the receiving end as someone with cancer. I’m pretty f-ing chuffed with the current science around my cancer and the treatment options. If not for the work of those scientists over many decades, I’d be dead before this time next year.

I completely trust Scientific Theorum, I do not trust that people always apply it correctly. Any scientist who has a bias can cause an incorrect conclusion.
Nothing you've stated is about the theorum, it's ethics, practices by industry and morals. Scientific Theorum if applied correctly can inform us, that a previous "Truth" was a "False" under certain situations and also tells us what those proven situations were.

After ten years I was told I had to stop taking HRT because the risk of breast cancer was too high. I suffered all the awful symptoms of menopause which were exacerbated I think by having been suppressed. 15 years later this research was discredited and I learnt I could have stayed on HRT and not suffered.

None of your points are about science as such. Science simply understands the world by making testable hypotheses. It's about rational enquiry. Science is actually the opposite of trust. There's no better expression of that than the motto of The Royal Society - 'Nullius in verba'.

Your questions are really about morality and ethics.

@SerendipityJane "Coupled with the fact that real scientists deliberately put their work into the hands of other scientists (and occasionally the public) to find fault with. Which is the yardstick by which you can spot charlatans and snake oil salespersons a mile off - they are the exact opposite. Secretive and dismissive"

Yep. This.

@Jeffandpedro "And science can be swayed once big money is involved"

No it can't. Scientists can be.

Why ?

What part of the scientific process do you feel is being eclipsed ? Which peer reviewed papers do you feel are sub par ? Which of the agencies tasked with checking results do you feel hasn't done their job ?