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.

Should we just go back to religion and witchcraft?

This, absolutely this. And of course, if the NHS could ever afford it (ha...!), something like pharmacogenetics tests to prevent drug injury like mine. And to see which medication is the most effective/safest to use for each individual.

I'm living in cloud cuckooaland, obviously, but one day, in an ideal world...

Some people have.

And some people never left.

😂

I think this minimising of female ill health is one of the biggest problems with modern medical science actually.

More women scientists then. And a society that supports and values that (would be nice).

@ForeverDelayedEpiphany it's baby steps, but it's coming https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg59

I trust scientific method far more than I trust ancient wisdom, religious ideology or lived experience.

The problem that we have at the moment is around funding of research - those who have the means to fund it, often interfere in the process of what is researched and publishing/not publishing of results. See pharmaceutical and food industries.

I don't think there is enough independent funding for people to look at non profitable areas of scientific study.

Thank you for this, very interesting.

I'd love to see this happening in a broader sense but as you say, it's baby steps. I had to pay a lot for a private pharmacogenetics test and of course, it showed I was at risk of being more severely affected by drugs like antipsychotics, which the test said to avoid 😳😫😳 Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

‘Science’ is just knowledge. Current knowledge. Which will change.

It isn’t a static ‘thing’, or an objective reality. It’s just what humans ‘know’ at any given point in time. ‘Science’ is always in a state of flux in one way or another.

Leeches are still used: www.hey.nhs.uk/patient-leaflet/leech-therapy/

I trust scientists as much as I trust any human beings. Which is not at all.

It’s a really odd, unanswerable question. I suppose if I was pushed I’d say yes, I trust science over, for example, blind faith or religion. It depends what you’re actually asking and what you mean by “science”.

If you’re asking does science always produce good outcomes, then self-evidently the answer is no. However, do I believe in science as a method of better understanding the world around us and solving problems - then yes.

I should have said in my previous post, I'm really sorry you've been affected by drug side effects. I think - hope! - most scientists would be the first to step forward and acknowledge that science isn't perfect and while a drug might be net beneficial on a population level, individual harms can and do happen. I think sometimes, though, scientists/medics can get a bit overly defensive. On a human level it's a natural instinct to be defensive when you feel criticised. But also with all the messaging about how people have 'had enough of experts', anti-vaxxers etc etc, when you're really just trying to do your bit to improve human health it's hard not to leap straight on the defence. But it's certainly not the best response when someone has suffered harm.

I have zero faith in vaccines that are developed in a matter of months ie Covid vaccines, boosters etc.

I suppose I ask because some patients are very distrustful and others very grateful....some want treatment others don't...it interests me.
Some friends are proud of what I do ...others question me " coz radiation."

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 ?

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

No it can't. Scientists can be.

@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.

I suppose if vaccines have been developed in a few months the long term side effects cannot be adequately determined. Also don't drugs normally take years to come to market. I guess Covid was not " normal " circumstances.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.