Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask to what extent you trust science?

115 replies

malificent7 · 03/11/2024 10:23

I work in a stem, hi tech field and regard myself as scientific, however I also acknowledge how it dosn't always get it right.
For example thalidomide resulted in disabilities, the atomic bomb opened a huge can of worms as did genetic engineering and cloning.
I also find testing on animals very problematic ( as well as the fact that it is not regarded as the best/ most thorough type of research...a systematic literature review is...and testing on humans surely yields more accurate results albiet totally unethical!!! ).
Pesticides help us produce more food but I suspect they are not grrat for us compared to organic food etc.
I also think chemotherapy and radiotherapy are awful, crude cancer treatments in tetms of side effects.
I think on one hand science has given us so much...electricity, medicine, space exploration etc but AI has opened up huge ethical concerns. People still don't trust vaccines or big pharma and we run the risk of loosing ancient wisdoms. Things like cryogenics for example are just plain weird.
Is science arrogant...in the sense that humans think we have all the answers or can it truly better us?

Just musing really as I know that COVID divided opinions further. Thought it might be an intetesting discussion.

OP posts:
Original poster
malificent7 · 03/11/2024 10:46

You are right in as much that it's how it's used/ funded that counts ....it should be impartial but no chance!

OP posts:
MagpiePi · 03/11/2024 10:46

Science is only ever the best we have at the moment.
For example, chemotherapy and radiotherapy may be crude and have terrible side effects but they do work in that they can cure or reduce cancers. They have been refined over time to increase efficacy and reduce side effects. However it is likely that vaccines and gene therapies will take over as the primary treatments as they are improved and become cheaper.

Thriwit · 03/11/2024 10:45

I don’t think “science” is really something you can or cannot trust, it just is.
The question of “to what extent do you trust scientists?” is a different matter. Or “to what extent do you trust the scientific method?” yet a further matter.

Hoardasurass · 03/11/2024 10:43

None of the "bad" outcomes you've blamed on science are the fault of science, they are the result of poor planning, failure to research female biology and a lack of ethical consideration.
Science is neutral neither good or bad it is the scientists and governments/military who choose how to use it

Jeffandpedro · 03/11/2024 10:42

And science can be swayed once big money is involved.

leafinthewind · 03/11/2024 10:42

What Taytoface said.

Plus this... Science is a method. You don't trust the outcomes, you trust the method. We, as a population using scientific methods, won't get it 'right' first time every time, but the method will get us there.

I'm a fan of Popper's approach. If a statement is falsifiable, then it can be subject to the scientific method. So "should" and "ought" statements are moral ones, and usually not falsifiable. Whereas "results in" and "predicts" statements can be checked and shown to be false (or not).

That's the opposite of arrogance. Scientific thinking opens us up to criticism and checks and the possibility that we are wrong.

Original poster
malificent7 · 03/11/2024 10:42

Just dosn't sit well with me but I am an animal lover.

OP posts:
Original poster
malificent7 · 03/11/2024 10:41

Well I know systematic reviews analyse primary research including tests on animals.

OP posts:
Tooffless · 03/11/2024 10:40

The file drawer problem of non-significant findings is a huge issue. They won't sort that out until journals are routinely reporting null results. Some journals do this but they're not the journals getting you promoted, at least in my field.

Original poster
malificent7 · 03/11/2024 10:39

So yes we can diagnose quicker but you will be getting a small dose of radiation
( unless mri/ us).

OP posts:
CastlesinSpain · 03/11/2024 10:39

I trust science. Trusting how it's applied - not so much.

Original poster
malificent7 · 03/11/2024 10:38

Radiology

OP posts:
Angrymum22 · 03/11/2024 10:38

We learn by our mistakes. One of which is that we need rigorous testing regarding drugs.
Due to our ancestors lack of risk aversion we are now much more safety concious.

Taytoface · 03/11/2024 10:35

So, what do you think systematic reviews actually review? Explain how they can replace animal use in research.

That high tech STEM field you work in what might that be?

Original poster
malificent7 · 03/11/2024 10:23

Great *

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread