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.

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)

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.

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

It depends who is funding the science.

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

Meant to write -

It depends who is funding the science.

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

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?

Yes and to use that ghastly phrase they are looking at how to monetise it by isolating and patebting specific compounds in it!!

Someone I know recently received funding from the Gates Foundation as they are developing low cost tech to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of parasitic diseases in low and middle income countries. So evil.

'Vitamin B17'. Not a vitamin. Actually a weaker synthetic version of cyanide.

Giving people weakened doses of something poisonous in the hope it'll kill cancer cells and not just the person and their other cells. But one where they are told it's too dangerous to eat peaches or almonds (and a bunch of other foods) if they decide to take it.

Sounds like a less safe attempt at chemotherapy to me and I think I'd rather have tried and already tested ones or immunotherapy such as is being developed through actual science (or the new targeted radiotherapy implants) over an attempt to evade legal requirements for drug efficacy and safety to be able to flog it as a supplement.

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

"But I don't understand calculus - so it must be a hoax."

"2+2=4 ? That's what they want you to think."

@curious79 Yeah, no shit. They're trying to make it a) more effective and b) safer and with fewer drawbacks, because there's no doubt that smoking the dried plant comes with a lot of health-related drawbacks. That's work and it requires investment. Nobody will be forced to buy their products when they're done. Also, nice post hoc shifting of the goalposts from "big pharma has no interest in proving the benefits of marijuana" to "big pharma wants to monetise marijuana by proving the benefits of it".

Science is correct… but something it’s difficult to identify side effects of new therapies or the effects on new technology… only after years of use.

This was my thought too. If there's no practical research on a subject, there's likely going to be nothing written about it to compile a systemic review...

Scientific literacy and the ability to critically appraise literature is important but these seem to be very niche rather than universal skills.

@SpecduckularlyQuackers

My friend wrote a book. Educate yourself.

amzn.eu/d/fXMmfRm

It's a favourite hobbyhorse of the woo-invested to claim that "big pharma doesn't fund research into essential oils/vitamins/homeopathy/reiki because there's no money in it for them", when in fact all these things have been extensively studied through clinical trials and gold-standard evidence reviews and have been found to be no more effective than placebo, which is why they are still "alternative therapies" and not "therapies".

Are there legitimate criticisms to be made of the agendae and budgets and politics and egos that shape scientific and medical research? For sure. Is the above one of them? Nope.

Odd question.

Science: the way the material world works, just ‘is’. How can I trust or distrust ‘science’?

Human’s response to science is a different matter.
Do I trust scientific discoveries in the hands of profit making businesses? Not without close scrutiny.
Do I think scientists to behave ethically? No more or less than any other humans (so no, they need close scrutiny)
Do I trust governments to manage and communicate scientific issues? No, not at all.

Do I think we should pursue and look to scientific research to further understanding if the material world and address many of our problems? Yes.