To ask to what extent you trust science?

[malificent7]

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.

Great *

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?

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.

Radiology

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

And science can be swayed once big money is involved.

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

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.

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.

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

I trust science. Science doesn't have all the answers, but it has the best answers available to us at any given point in time.

I have zero issues with medical testing on animals. It's very very highly regulated, and a necessary evil.

Science is a lot less about "knowing stuff" (as the great public believe it is) and much more about the process of getting to know stuff.

Hence science will never be finished.

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.

I trust the science, but not the people in charge of the science/data, they will only tell us what they want us to know.
For instance I'm on medication due to having osteoporosis, and the data around this drug, its use and most importantly has changed greatly in the ten years I've been on it. However many people are prescribed it when not meeting the criteria for it and aren't told the issues re missing a dose or coming off it despite this now being scientifically proved data. The medical reps don't mention it, many doctors don't research or even believe it at times when flagged by a patient and because it's an injection the patient is less likely to see or read the leaflet which has some of the info albeit couched in manufacturers terms

Interesting debate.

I think, as a PP mentioned, people need to understand that it's more method than anything else, and that not everything can be set in stone via the results because research is often ongoing.

One bug bear of mine about people being intractable about something, say with regards to medicine, because "science" is that while something might work / be safe for 95% of subjects, if you're in the 5% who suffers a catastrophic reaction or injury for whatever reason, there's an attitude if "well, that's unfortunate but never mind, everyone else is OK, and if you make a fuss you're going against science". I know that sounds a bit muddled and simplistic, but I do think that it's possible to acknowledge that science isn't infallible, and look after those on the rough end without denying them the right to be a bit upset about it.

I trust science 90%. The other 10% accounts for new/improved data, bias, human error or maliciousness etc.

A lot of the UK funding is very impartial. The process is rigorous, involving external review, and very fair.

we run the risk of loosing ancient wisdoms

Er, ok?

Yours seems like a very crude, rather basic view for someone who is a qualified radiologist. The thalidomide scandal happened because of laxer testing protocols in the 1950s, because of far less knowledge about drugs crossing the placental barrier, and laxer requirements for selling drugs over the counter. (Interestingly, the US didn’t approve it.) The consequences of the full horror of what it caused led to changes in testing and licensing protocols, the necessity for drugs to be tested on humans before licensing, and the necessity to provide actual evidence they’re safe for use by pregnant women if they are prescribed for use in pregnancy, plus the invention of the yellow card scheme to allow anyone to share unknown side effects quickly. When thalidomide is prescribed now, women taking it need to be on two forms of contraception and take regular pregnancy tests.

That doesn’t in any way mitigate the sufferings of those affected, but science will always be working with what it knows at any time, and the pharmaceutical industry will be looking at ways to profit. Absolutely, in future we will no doubt look back on current cancer treatments the way we look back on leeches and bloodletting, but that’s always been the case.

I trust science. I don't always trust people.
Business, personal and political motives can creep into science and pollute it.
The major issue in my opinion is that the general population don't really understand how scientific advance works - that theories are developed to explain observed phenomenon and they are just that - theories - and are open to being challenged and improved on. Even evolution is still a theory, but one that has stood the test of time for so long it can to all intents and purposes be treated as fact.
Same with Climate Change, although that process has been squished into a mere 40-50 yrs and has been a case study in business and political interests trying to push the process off course.

And FYI the issue with Thalidomide was arguably that they didn't do enough animal testing - if they had done more on apes rather than mice they would have seen the deformities

I mostly trust science, but I keep in mind that scientific evidence is often misrepresented in the media, unevenly applied in health care and that the real world often lags far behind the newest scientific findings.