Scientists & Public Scrutiny

[logifuse]

I recently watched a couple of series about the history of Atoms & Chemistry (Chemistry: A Volatile History) & what struck me was how much scientific argument raged almost completely behind closed doors.

At the time (from the 1800s through to fairly recently) all these ideas were hammered out between scientists, & eventually only very interested members of the public would hear about the "consensus" result, while most people went about their lives completely obliviously.

Jump forward to today & we're constantly bombarded with vague findings of initial studies on rats that may or may not have some implication in 20 years time, while it's quite possible (likely?) that most will come to nothing.

What's driving this change & is it of benefit? Surely if we keep being told about 'break-throughs" that come to nothing, public trust in science will fall (is falling? has fallen?)? My guess is that it's an effort to put science in the limelight, to make it relevant in an effort to ensure funding. But if you take that approach, then don't be shocked when the public or the media start to look closer & ask questions.

I don't think we can go back to the good old days (thanks to 24 hr electronic media), but I can't see a way of having things work with the current situation as loud, objectionable voices will be heard, & that matters where public funding/policy is involved.

Above all else, that's why I think there'll never be any real action on climate change, or any other major science based policy from now on. Where ever you stand on current arguments, that's pretty sad & a bit of a worry.

Justin

[Mike]

I think "instant" information / communication is creating, and will continue to create more and more problems until we all somehow adjust and learn how to deal with all the information that's becoming available.

I watch my kids and the way they all use text, Facebook and messenger etc., and you'd think that with all those facilities that they'd have it all nailed down - but so often at 7:00pm on a Saturday night they still haven't organised anything because they've all become so used to sorting stuff out at the last second - and half the time their arrangements go belly up if one or two of the group don't answer their phones.

With regards to your point - the recent CRU email scandal could never have happened as little as 5 years ago - and as we've all come to realise since the Faulklands & Iraq etc., nothing saves a politician's backside more effectively than a "war" on something - and that can only mean that science/scientists will increasingly be seen by the polititians as little more than a tool to validate their latest need.

And as you rightly mention - when they control the purse strings the "independence" of many scientists will become questionable as they are forced to "manage" issues to ensure their own survival.

The digital age is forcing a monumental volume of change on society - and as much as most of us here love all the geeky suff - I have real difficulty believing that all the changes we're going through and have yet to encounter will turn out to be beneficial in the longer term.

Mike's 2c

[logifuse]

I'm not so much worried about the tail wagging the dog (scientists doing their funders bidding), but attacks on things being funded from outside interests. Think Bush & stem cell funding (or lack there of) due to ideological pressue.

If anything, the information age guards against direct political pressure as it can be easily exposed. Take today's example of not considering dams in the report on the northern foodbowl simply becuase it wasn't labor policy.

The CRU/IPCC situation is just an example of old school scientific hustle & bustle coming up against new school public scrutiny, & they haven't handled the scrutiny well at all. Whether they like it or not, 'the club' way of working is gone - they're unlucky that the change has come right in the middle of their work, so the old stuff looks bad with new eyes. That's why it will never get anywhere, whether they're right or not.

Justin

[GuiGuy]

Originally Posted by logifuse

I recently watched a couple of series about the history of Atoms & Chemistry (Chemistry: A Volatile History) & what struck me was how much scientific argument raged almost completely behind closed doors.
<snip>
Jump forward to today & we're constantly bombarded with vague findings of initial studies on rats that may or may not have some implication in 20 years time, while it's quite possible (likely?) that most will come to nothing.

What's driving this change & is it of benefit?

Justin,
I often question such matters in a philosophical sense. However, instead of me waffling on about the decay of the Age of Reason and ascent and intrusion of capitalism let me recommend a bit of John Ralston Saul; the Doubters' Companion to give immediate, if abbreviated, insight. "Voltaire's Bastards" to be clear how the Age of Reason got screwed over.

University: A place in which a civilization's knowledge is divided into exclusive territories.

NB: Ignore my ravings if your world is tinted by rose coloured glasses.