| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
7591 |
|
|
Date: February 12, 2025 at 09:04:59
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: When science itself comes under attack, we all suffer |
URL: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5138883-science-under-attack-scientific-method/ |
|
When science itself comes under attack, we all suffer
by Sheldon H. Jacobson, opinion contributor - 02/12/25 11:00 AM ET
Adobe Stock
Science is under attack. As the new administration moves aggressively toward implementing its policies, the entire field could find itself the victim of decisions by individuals who lack the knowledge, training or expertise to achieve the right balance between progress and adherence to basic scientific principles and processes, and all the benefits that can be accrued.
President Trump says that “common sense” should be the overriding theme in his administration, and of his policies. Undoubtedly, common sense is a good thing. Yet using common sense as the only standard for decision-making ignores complexities in the natural world, technology and medicine. That is where the scientific method comes into play.
So what is the scientific method, and why is it important and needed? The scientific method provides a procedure for defining new knowledge. It may involve a stated hypothesis that must be tested by designing an experiment or proven using axiomatic principles grounded in mathematics. In some cases, the scientific method may appear overly burdensome to apply. Common sense may appear more efficient as a mechanism to obtain new knowledge and understanding.
Certainly, there are instances when one does not need to apply the scientific method to gain knowledge. For example, the scientific method is not needed to assess whether it is better to jump out of an airplane with or without a parachute. Common sense dictates what should be done to maximize your chance of survival.
Yet there are numerous places in science where the conclusion is not so obvious.
This is particularly true in medicine, where clinicians may be faced with numerous options of care for a medical condition. In such cases, clinical trials can be designed to identify a standard of care that can be broadly applied and is safe and effective. Such knowledge benefits both clinicians in providing and patients with receiving the best known care. Clinical trials are widely used in the pharmaceutical industry when new products are developed and must be evaluated for their safety and effectiveness compared to existing standards of care.
One of the most valuable insights gleaned from applying the scientific method is reproducibility of the results. Though common sense may guide a hypothesis, the scientific method provides evidence that the conclusions drawn can be reliably and consistently obtained in the field.
The same benefits hold true with technologies that everyone uses and benefits from. Microchips are the driver for most available technologies. today Yet research and development (which applies the scientific method) conducted over many years have advanced such technologies such that they are available at low cost, widely accessible for everyone’s benefit, and reliable. Few people pick up their smartphone wondering whether it will operate as expected. The reliability of technologies has become expected and assumed.
Advances in artificial intelligence are made with new models that must be hypothesized and evaluated. Large language models have given us tools like Chat GPT that mimic human conversation and interactions. Such advances do not emerge in a vacuum; they require research to make fundamental insights that permit massive amounts of data to be used to train such models.
When the scientific method is questioned, scientific and technological advances will slow or even come to a halt. The costs of such headwinds are enormous, as the United States works to maintain and grow its global preeminence, particularly with a near-peer like China working at full speed to make scientific and technological discoveries. The announcement of DeepSeek showcases such foreign capabilities.
Applying the scientific method can be challenging, time consuming and expensive. That is why investments by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are critical to advance knowledge, ultimately making everyone’s life better. President Trump’s announcement that overhead rates on NIH grants will be capped at 15 percent would handcuff medical research at universities and research laboratories, slowing the progress of medical advances to the detriment of all.
Scientific advances are also needed by the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. They invest in science research to enhance their missions, which makes everyone safer and protects the economic and societal interests of our nation.
Given that such agencies support thousands of research grants every year, it is impossible to know beforehand which research projects will result in the most significant advances. Peer review provides a mechanism to vet such projects, though looking into the future is always fraught with uncertainty. That is why so many grants must be supported — since some of the most impactful new knowledge sometimes emerges out of the most unexpected research proposals.
Anyone who rejects the benefits of science and the scientific method should toss away their smartphone, stop using the internet and social media, never travel on an airplane, and ignore medical advice to treat their ailments. All these societal benefits and advances are grounded in the very concepts rejected by those attacking science.
The scientific method is politically agnostic. It seeks neither power nor prestige. It is a procedure to uncover new information and insights, and in many cases, doing so for the benefit of all.
Whether future research will advance technology to make smartphones even smarter or uncover new treatments for cancer that will save countless lives, at the core of such advances is the scientific method. Without such a methodological process, we will ultimately find ourselves living in a modern dark age for knowledge creation, a place that provides little benefits for our nation and the world.
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor in computer science in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[7592] [7594] |
|
7592 |
|
|
Date: February 12, 2025 at 10:44:46
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: When science itself comes under attack, we all suffer |
|
|
Science has been under attack for decades, and it shows in many of
the subjects discussed on your forums. That so many people believe
in wholly ludicrous musings sourced from the lunatic fringe - good
song, BTW - and attack any scientific approach to bring facts and
reason to the discussion proves this. Science is considered the
enemy by may who have passed through these forums.
The information age heralded by instant global communication at our
fingertips has sadly not brought us a New Enlightenment but rather
a New Dark Ages.
Those of us who remember our history lessons note that many of the
repressive and destructive regimes of the past, for which so many
have sacrificed to vanquish, had at their beginnings the control of
knowledge and information.
That science, and with it knowledge and reason, are attacked serves
as warning.
Instead of book burning, we have lists of forbidden terms.
Instead of propaganda, we have openly biased media.
Instead of mass roundups, we have mass firings.
Instead of November 9th, there was January 6th.
Of what form will be the New Kristallnacht?
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[7594] |
|
7594 |
|
|
Date: February 13, 2025 at 15:24:20
From: mitra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: When science itself comes under attack, we all suffer |
URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-war-on-science-book-review/ |
|
Thank you. Thought I'd mention:
The War on Science [Book Review]
The greatest source of health, wealth and power in the
21st century is in danger of being crushed, according
to Shawn Lawrence Otto
A decades-long assault on science threatens democracy
and civic progress in the U.S. and around the world,
according to The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why
It Matters and What We Can Do about It (Milkweed
Editions, 2016), the latest book by Shawn Lawrence
Otto. Despite the overwrought title, Otto marshals an
astonishingly broad range of facts, trends and history
to make his case that “scientific advances in public
health, biology and the environment are being resisted
or rolled back.”
Otto grounds his inquiry into current antiscience
attitudes by examining their cultural and intellectual
roots in, among other things, the anti-Darwinist
reaction of the 19th century, the wholesale retreat by
many scientists from civic discourse after World War II
and the postmodernist movement of the late 20th
century.
At times, Otto seems to be criticizing everyone—from
academics to industrialists to journalists to
politicians. But, despite cogently eviscerating the
ultraliberal anti-vaccine element and the “brutal,
blame-the-victim aspect of New Age thinking,” he
reserves his greatest ire for the “antiscience of those
on the right—a coalition of fundamentalist churches and
corporations largely in the resource extraction,
petrochemical and agrochemical industries.” Their
effort, Otto writes, “has far more dangerous public
policy implications because it is about forestalling
policy based on evidence to protect destructive
business models.”
And it’s in discussing public policy issues that Otto
performs the greatest service. Since 2008 Otto and a
handful of supporters have tried to convince major
media outlets and the presidential candidates to
conduct a national debate that addresses the
fundamental scientific nature of major political
challenges—from energy policy to climate change to
water shortages to future economic growth. (Full
disclosure, Scientific Americanpartnered with Otto
during the 2012 presidential election to evaluate the
candidates’ responses to 14 questions about the
scientific underpinnings of their proposed policies.)
The War on Science provides Otto the room to make the
case in sweeping detail.
Those who argue that science should stay out of the
political arena are easily dismissed. “The practice of
science itself cannot possibly be apolitical because it
takes nothing on faith,” Otto writes. Science, by its
nature, does not fear or favor any single human being
or group. Thus, the knowledge it produces almost
invariably upsets the status quo, challenging whomever
or whatever depends on that status quo for their
staying power.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |