As more of a casual observer of science rather than a pure practitioner now, I’ve been saddened by the state of science in the past few years. With the condemnation of climate skeptics to the lack of scientific knowledge worldwide, there is much to be worried about. It’s gotten me concerned that we’ve strayed too far from the pure pursuit of universal knowledge and that we, as a culture, have ultimately failed science.
What does that even mean?
That’s a good question. To answer that, I’d like to use the standard definition of scientists that a typical grade schooler would have – that of really smart people who are passionate about what they’re studying, expanding the knowledge of humankind, in whichever field they study. White lab coats optional.
With more and more of my friends earning their PhDs and actively engaging in the pursuit of science, I continue to hear horror stories that counter the notion of scientists that our naive younger selves have fostered. Science has ultimately become a process that focuses more on selling an idea than on understanding an idea. How did we get this way? Well, let’s jump straight to the point.
Science is expensive, and that means business.
It wasn’t always this way, of course. Afterall, we remember the time when studying a chemical reaction involved just some baking soda and vinegar. Science nowadays, regardless of the field of study, requires sophisticated lab equipment, computing power, travel and even safety equipment to keep any dangerous materials well contained. Furthermore, science is risky, and there is no guarantee of success. With all these inherent costs, scientists are always on the hunt for grant and corporate money to continue their work. Unfortunately, when extra funding from these sources comes into play, they almost carry some form of overt or covert agenda. Projects that get funded are swayed by popular opinion (if it’s from the government) or by corporate profit interests – neither of which are always good for science.
Science is generally poorly explained.
I don’t mean that people aren’t capable of understanding science. In fact, I think most people with a high school degree is perfectly capable of understanding concepts like climate change or genetically modified food. Rather, it’s the way science is explained by the mass media that worry me. Most science that’s reported in the papers, or on TV are typically watered down – focusing on sensationalism than on accuracy. How many news outlets have a trained science reporter on staff to digest, understand, and report on developments in the pure science?
On the flip side, science journals tend to sway completely the other way, maintaining that a strict science language be maintained, failing to translate scientific jargon for the common man. No wonder regular journalists fail to report on scientific progress accurately.
Skepticism Should Be Fostered, Not Squashed
In my opinion, science and skepticism are synonymous. The point of science is to ask questions of our existing base of knowledge to either confirm or deny its logical validity within the knowledge base. As our collective sum of knowledge continues to grow and change, it is imperative that we continue to question what we know. Instead, many scientists are so concerned by egos and funding that they are willing to condemn “skeptics” and “deniers”, effectively turning their backs on the fundamentals of science and the scientific process. It’s mind-boggling and distressing that so many groups hide behind the shield of science while condemning others who are actually practicing it.
What can we possibly do?
Science, either pure or applied, is an integral part of our continued growth as our species, and we can’t let it be degraded into a word that gets bantered around as a nom du jour, but what can we possibly do to rectify this? Well, it can’t be a singular effort by any single group. Everyone needs to be involved.
Scientists need to get their head out of their asses. Science can not be a religion and scientists should not be high priests and priestesses that simply propagate the formula. Scientific rigour shouldn’t be abandoned, but they should also make a concerted effort to bridge the gap from the scientific language to something that’s much easier to understand by regular folks.
With tighter funding available for scientific research, we need to follow a Kickstarter model for scientific research. If we’ve learned anything from the Pebble e-watch story, it’s that crowd-sourced funding can work. However, we need to do more than that. Crowd-sourcing is fickle. A system like this must take out the politics and flavour of the month aspects of projects and focus on merit.
Another issue with the pure Kickstarter model is that there is a general sense that there is a return on the investment. With the risks inherent in scientific research, it’s actually worse than buying Facebook stock.
Perhaps we just need to blindly fund all scientists. Set all scientists up in a commune not unlike a university campus and let them explore to their heart’s content. As long as there are checks and balances in place to ensure that progress continues to be made.
Unfortunately, at our current pace, science will be completely hijacked from purely non-scientific interests and agendas. While the suggestions I’ve made are idealistic and far from practical, we need to make a significant shift in our relationship with science. The consequences may be dire.