The general public looks to the scientific community for explanations about everything from genetics to cosmology and what conclusions the scientific returns is how the general public perceives the world we live in. Since the public is not knowledgeable in the whichever field they are reading about, they put a great deal of trust in the scientist to report accurate and truthful data. During our exploration of scientific writing, I have some to discover that scientists are just as effected by their personal bias as the general public, and may unknowingly create a self-fulfilling prophecy in which they only recognize the data that supports their theories. We've also learned that in more extreme cases a researcher will even go so far as to falsify data for their own means. Another problem is that science accommodation writers will report one anecdotal situation as a representative of an entire population, such as the article we read on Autism and vaccines. The study was based on a group of 12 children, and made a sweeping generalization that MMR vaccines caused Autism. This is most certainly not something one could conclude from 12 patients when tens-of-millions of people are getting vaccinated.
When scientists aren't ethical in their research serious consequences can occur; in the case of Autism and vaccines, diseases once thought eliminated are returning due to the loss of "herd immunity" due to the fears of parents. Once scientists release misleading or false information, the media runs with it, making sure to sensationalize the information enough to start a controversy. Then John and Jane Doe read it in the newspaper and believe that their child is at risk (in the former case described). The real problem then arises; the parents believe they have adequate information to determine the safety of their child based on one study they read in the paper.
Scientists and researchers need to be more aware of how their data is going to transmit to the public. Careless reporting will lead to negative opinions about the validity of scientific research, and implants incorrect thoughts into the public's mind. Whenever I read an article or listen to news about scientific claims, I now know not to immediately believe anything (especially if it has anything to do with gender studies or psychology in general). I don't believe that A causes B in any situation; there are countless variables in any study that do not get accounted for. Also I understand that our knowledge is limited (we don't really know anything) and that purple unicorns from outer-space could appear at any time and completely shatter our current beliefs of reality (however unlikely). Like the old saying goes we only truly know two things: we're each going to die and pay taxes until we do. Unfortunately not many people have such a scrutinizing view of what others tell them and groups of people start believing falsified data.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Reflective Journal Blog Post
When I first made my proposal I just knew I wanted to study man-made objects in space from propulsion, solar systems, re-entry, spacecraft materials, and many others. With continued research on my topic, I have been able to narrow down to robotics in space, and have grown more excited about the topic than ever. I've found some really cool projects in development concerning autonomous programming for robots including the ability to intercept and course-correct orbital satellites, calculate a path through rocky terrain on Mars, and potentially even construct structures in space. In my proposal I wasn't quite sure what area of space robotics I wanted to research. Putting a search in ebsco for "space robotics" came up with a wealth of stuff, so I've narrowed my topic down to first why we need robots in space, the robots we have functioning now, and what applications we can use robotics in. A very large problem right now is "space junk". NASA's Orbital Debris website states that "[a]pproximately 19,000 objects larger than 10 cm are known to exist. The estimated population of particles between 1 and 10 cm in diameter is approximately 500,000. The number of particles smaller than 1 cm probably exceeds tens of millions". Also when we paired up today to talk about our project I got a lot of really good questions from my partner to further explore, so I've been able to define my topic a lot better. Another thing I want to talk about is how people interact with robots, known as teleoperation. Someone literally controls the robot from Earth or a spacestation, and is able to manipulate the environment just as if the operator had been there. This has incredibility fascinating potential to be "the next big thing" in space technology development. It reminds me of the book "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card where children were controlling fighter planes in space in what they thought a "game" but were really piloting actual craft in a war against bug-like extraterrestrials. I can imagine thousands of avid video-gamers would love to get their hands on the controller of some of the world's most advanced technology. I sure would like to.
Friday, March 2, 2012
ENGL Blog Post
What objectivity? After reading Fine and "106 Science Claims [...]" I don't trust anything I've ever learned about science. Fine has countless examples of researchers skewing the conclusions of data to fit their bias and what they want the data to reveal. Now anytime a friend tells me about some study I demand for more information than "some guys concluded this". Without details, empirical data, or repeated experiments conclusions mean nothing. I feel that the general public doesn't scrutinize scientific claims nearly enough and that can be very dangerous because people start believing incorrect data as fact. It's scary what people will believe and how easily.
Now I'm not saying there aren't any reputable scientists, they're the ones that keep to themselves and don't try to spit propaganda through faulty science. The problem is they aren't the ones reaching out to the masses and changing social policy. I also feel a big part of the problem is caused when research is accommodated and the uncertainty researchers have of direct correlations gets completely thrown out the window. Even if the researcher had objectivity in the beginning, the results of the study get into the public and carried away. I remember in grade school we would play this game where one person whispered something into another student’s ear, then that student passed the message to another student, and so on and so forth. By the end of the line the message was horribly altered into something not even close to relating to the original message. I find this to be a very appropriate example of what the general public ends up doing with scientific claims.
Every day I hear information that people claim as “true” that I know for a fact to be incorrect just by doing a tiny bit of personal research. One of my favorites is the use of Taurine. First time I heard about it my friend said, “oh yeah that stuff in Red Bull comes from bull testes, that’s why they call it that.” In reality Taurine was first extracted from bull bile (Marshall, ML. "Taurine." Nutritional Perspectives: Journal Of The Council On Nutrition 32.4 (2009): 33-34. CINAHL with Full Text.) and that “fact is that the taurine in Red Bull is produced synthetically by pharmaceutical companies and is not derived from animals” (Red Bull’s website). That took me a whole fifteen minutes to find out for myself and now I’m that much less ignorant.
Basically, people need to be more aware that scientists have agendas too and not to immediately credit what anyone says. A questioning mind is a healthy mind.
Now I'm not saying there aren't any reputable scientists, they're the ones that keep to themselves and don't try to spit propaganda through faulty science. The problem is they aren't the ones reaching out to the masses and changing social policy. I also feel a big part of the problem is caused when research is accommodated and the uncertainty researchers have of direct correlations gets completely thrown out the window. Even if the researcher had objectivity in the beginning, the results of the study get into the public and carried away. I remember in grade school we would play this game where one person whispered something into another student’s ear, then that student passed the message to another student, and so on and so forth. By the end of the line the message was horribly altered into something not even close to relating to the original message. I find this to be a very appropriate example of what the general public ends up doing with scientific claims.
Every day I hear information that people claim as “true” that I know for a fact to be incorrect just by doing a tiny bit of personal research. One of my favorites is the use of Taurine. First time I heard about it my friend said, “oh yeah that stuff in Red Bull comes from bull testes, that’s why they call it that.” In reality Taurine was first extracted from bull bile (Marshall, ML. "Taurine." Nutritional Perspectives: Journal Of The Council On Nutrition 32.4 (2009): 33-34. CINAHL with Full Text.) and that “fact is that the taurine in Red Bull is produced synthetically by pharmaceutical companies and is not derived from animals” (Red Bull’s website). That took me a whole fifteen minutes to find out for myself and now I’m that much less ignorant.
Basically, people need to be more aware that scientists have agendas too and not to immediately credit what anyone says. A questioning mind is a healthy mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)