Beneath any valuable study, you’ll find a web of research, institutions, humans — and, of course, money. Trust in science hinges on the process.
This article appeared in the June 2021 issue ofSome scientists wish to uncover truths of the natural universe — to learn the properties of distant stars, or deep-sea creatures, or the interior of our cells. Others seek solutions, hoping to better our lives or undo the damage we’ve done to our environment. The list of motivations runs long, depending on who you talk to. But most people don’t know any scientists personally.
Listen to scientists and you might hear that climate change could be mitigated, vaccines save lives or genetically engineered crops can help combat starvation without adverse health effects. Why should we believe them? The answer can only come from an examination of the process of science itself, which unfolds along a web of funding, research standards and public perceptions.
After submission to a specific journal, the main editor will give a paper first look. If it seems to be a good fit, that editor will identify typically three other scientists in the relevant field of research and ask them to review the paper. That means multiple experts examine the work ultra-carefully, looking for anything that seems amiss. They may say: I think this datapoint is a glitch; you used the wrong analysis here; or, your results are fine, but the conclusions you drew are flawed.
For instance, the tobacco industry invested in research about the genetic factors of lung disease. They also built legal cases around asbestos to fend off plaintiffs who smoked and got cancer. None of that means the research itself was conducted improperly, even if the motivation for and use of the research was shady. “They just wanted to muddy up the waters,” Mariscal says. Essentially, research could be used like a shield to protect tobacco sales.
In 1981, just a few years after Exxon scientists found a convincing link between fossil fuels and climate change, company executive Roger Cohen wrote an internal memo warning that the continued consumption of fossil fuels could be catastrophic, “at least for a substantial fraction of the population.” Yet external communications from the company maintained a different message.
Argentina Últimas Noticias, Argentina Titulares
Similar News:También puedes leer noticias similares a ésta que hemos recopilado de otras fuentes de noticias.
Khloé Kardashian Has Awkward Conversation About Trust With Tristan Thompson in New 'Kardashians' TrailerThe latest trailer for TheKardashians gives viewers an inside look at personal conversations and intimate behind-the-scenes footage. The new series will be available to watch on Hulu, April 14.
Leer más »
The ‘Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’ Creators Trust Their Own Comic TimingAs season four premieres, Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino open up about reuniting with ‘Gilmore Girls’ alums, addressing Susie’s sexuality, and ending the series—all at their own pace.
Leer más »
Robots built from frog cells have unlocked the ability to self-replicateRobots such as these, capable of making offshoots of themselves, could be a future tool for science and medicine.
Leer más »
Vinyl vs Digital: Which Sounds Better?Some people swear vinyl recordings sound best. Is it nostalgia or is it science?
Leer más »
Sherri Papini’s pal still supports her after kidnapping ‘hoax’: ‘Everybody makes mistakes’Sherri Papini’s former colleague threw her support behind the California “super mom,” saying love makes you do “crazy things.”
Leer más »