But they aren't the only one's. Science is a human endeavor and is corruptible. But as a methodology for getting at the truth, science is one of our best technologies because -- over time -- it is self-correcting.
Here's an example of corruption similar to that among climatologists showing up among stem cell scientists. This if from a BBC report:
Journal stem cell work 'blocked'The joke, as pointed out by John Maynard Keynes, is that "in the long run we are all dead". Catching bad science can seem glaical (pun intended) in its pace. The global warming crowd is now having some light shown into the corner and the science will benefit from the criticisms coming from the skeptics camp. What makes science so powerful is that it is a democratic process. There is no explicit "voting" but over time you have to use the protocols of the scientific method to convince your peers of the correctness of your facts and theories. This is a self-correcting process. Unfortunately it can take a long time to get de-railed science back on track. But it will eventually be put right.
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
Stem cell experts say they believe a small group of scientists is effectively vetoing high quality science from publication in journals.
In some cases they say it might be done to deliberately stifle research that is in competition with their own.
It has also emerged that 14 leading stem cell researchers have written an open letter to journal editors in order to highlight their dissatisfaction.
Billions of pounds of public money is spent on funding stem cell research.
The open letter to the major scientific journals claims that "papers that are scientifically flawed or comprise only modest technical increments often attract undue profile. At the same time publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected".
Two internationally-renowned researchers have spoken to BBC News about their concerns.
They are Robin Lovell-Badge, who is speaking in a personal capacity, and Austin Smith, from the University of Cambridge.
Professor Lovell-Badge said: "It's turning things into a clique where only papers that satisfy this select group of a few reviewers who think of themselves as very important people in the field is published.
2 comments:
Science is still the best method we have to acquire knowledge, but your point is well taken. My impression is that scientists are a whole lot more honest than many others, as long as big corporate money isn't dangled in their face.
I'm not sure scientists are any more honest than other people. Instead, I trust in their methodology to keep them honest.
The scientific method requires that you communicate your discoveries and provide details so that others can replicate it. Science doesn't appeal to authority or to money or to power. It seeks truth by appealing to a community of investigators who freely interact and replicate each other's work. If a claim can't be replicated, it is not science. If you hide data or misconstrue theory to fit your favourite facts, that's not science. The real judge of truth is time and the open society of scientists who share ideas, techniques, theories, and data.
I think it is the method that keeps scientists on their toes and makes them look more honest than others. But I'm pretty sure they are as corruptible as others if you remove the openness of the methodology.
Post a Comment