What is wrong with science today?

[nec209]

There soo much debate now in the science community and myths that are not proven true or false.

 

Many scientist say stress can cause gray hair or thin,bold hair

 

Many scientist say smoking pot can lead to lung cancer or kill brain cells and lead to short term memory proccessing problem.

 

Many scientist say brain cells ,heart cells and the spine do not devide or grow and injury is for life.

 

Many scientist say too much cell phone can lead to cancer.

 

Many scientist say stress or anger can cause ulcers and hernia.

 

Many scientist say kidney stones is caused by stress,anger or junk food.

 

Mnay scientist say this is true and many say this is a myth.

 

What is wrong with sciance today? How hard would it be to prove this true or false? Why do sciance do not want to look into this?

 

 

People like myself are losing faith in science it not like it was before.And the media keeps bringing this up all the time.

[insane_alien]

i think you've been reading to many newspaper verions of what scientists say.

 

especially on the mobile phone one.

[nec209]

What do you mean? It is all over the news today.

 

MP Introduces Bill Mandating Radiation Warnings on Cell Phones

 

 

http://topnews.co.uk/216044-mp-introduces-bill-mandating-radiation-warnings-cell-phones

[ydoaPs]

Politicians and the media don't usually give a damn about what science actually says.

[CharonY]

News outlets are not a science source. However, even scientific papers can be proven wrong. All things considered, it is more likely that most will be proven wrong or inaccurate given enough time. This is how science works. Science is all about understanding how nature works and not about simple answers.

[dragonstar57]

news stations just need a headline once they are proven wrong they don't correct their error

[jackson33]

nec; Since somebody is using their added positive rep point, to undermine your comments, I'm going to surprise you and agree, albeit for different reasons.

 

Yes, media, what most of rely on for factual information generally quote from scientific reports, many times funded by Government or interested Business/Groups concerned with an agenda, and many reports are in time will be declared false. It's the nature of news and what folks are interested in, on any given day.

 

Looking at your list, I'd suggest those issues are political in nature and not worth your concerns. In most cases they are unconfirmed, highly arguable and no consensus has been established or if there is a consensus it's a result of the society.

 

What is wrong with sciance today? How hard would it be to prove this true or false? Why do sciance do not want to look into this?[/Quote]

 

It's really hard; What good for or not good for one person are often the exact opposite for another. Those really in science, devoted to their work opposed to funding or keeping their job, probably get a good laugh out of many of these so called revelations.

 

People like myself are losing faith in science it not like it was before.And the media keeps bringing this up all the time. [/Quote]

 

Don't lose faith, but keep science and speculation in separate boxes. Don't blame media either, their simply trying to cater to an audience or what they feel is are their interest...

[mississippichem]

The best part about science is that there is no need to have faith in it. Educate yourself, as all scientists do (even the ones who already have doctorates) and explore these questions for yourself. Look through the peer-reviewed literature if it is available to you (probably at the local university/college library). Even if you can't find a true or false answer you can familiarize yourself with the forefront of the debate on any question. Sometimes you will find there is no debate at all, the media likes to create them. You'll find it to be a rewarding experience. I think it's all about the pursuit myself.

[ajb]

I notice that all the examples in the opening post are all medical in nature. The thing is that usually in medicine all you can do is deal with averages and statistical likelihoods. This is especially so when the biological mechanisms of some illness or condition are not properly understood.

 

What is usually stated is that "if X then you are more likely to suffer Y". Percentages and factors can usually be given. However, if X does not guarantee Y for an individual, usually.

 

I think it is this statistical link that is sometimes in question. Are other more important factors missing from your study? Are there combinations of possible factors you have not taken into account properly? And so on...

 

For example I have met people that state that there is no proof that smoking courses lung cancer. What they were referring to was the fact that at the time (to what extent has this changed?) the mechanism for cancer being coursed by smoking was (is?) not know. However, they could not deny the statistical fact that if you smoke you are more likely to get cancer. For most of us this statistical link is all we need. But does it really prove that smoking causes cancer?

 

Now, you understand why it is often no so clear cut in medicine.

[swansont]

For the actual stories, the media gets a lot of the blame. I'm not giving scientists a free pass on this, though — some of the press releases I've read are simply awful. But the media often botch the job in trying to convey the information because they try and sensationalize the story. There was a recent story about how the cure for the common cold was imminent, which is not supported by the actual facts. Stories will mislead you with the headline and only get around to clarifying the point deep into the story (and many people don't bother to read that far)

 

Another factor is what ajb pointed out — medical studies are statistical in nature. Many stories will not distinguish between small-group and large group studies, and what the implications are of that. Even for large studies, there is still a chance that the result is an outlier. It gets published if the result is unexpected, but other studies that were "as expected" may not, because they are uninteresting. This is changing, as journals have started up with the sole purpose of publishing null results so that a positive result can be interpreted in context.

 

Also one must acknowledge that medicine is not strictly science and doctors are not scientists. There is a large dose of tradition and conventional wisdom that goes on. Clinical studies aren't always possible owing to ethics considerations (e.g. not treating a group of patients, even though a treatment exists, so that you can gauge the effectiveness of some therapy on another group)

[nec209]

For the actual stories, the media gets a lot of the blame. I'm not giving scientists a free pass on this, though

Another factor is what ajb pointed out — medical studies are statistical in nature.

 

 

 

What is hard for me or other people we are not scientists .I don't even have grade 12 !! I'm into science but just no time to read grade 11,12 books and other books on science.I do get time now and than to watch the learning channels like discovery or discovery science.I don't even have time to be on message board every day .

 

In the future I may do something with medicine has that is my interest.But before that I have to get my GED to improve my math, English, science and civics.I would love to get some grade 11 and 12 biology,physics and chemistry books.

 

In the mean time understanding radios and types of Electromagnetic spectrum and there properties and all types radions I would love to read more on but just no time has of now.

 

I'm reading basic books on electricity and computer hardware now.

 

For the actual stories, the media gets a lot of the blame. I'm not giving scientists a free pass on this, though

 

What I would like is the media to get consultants on the topic where the person has PHD that can interpret the scientific studies than a reporter could interpret it wrong.Also end the media sensation and controversial report to there is more fact base .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also one must acknowledge that medicine is not strictly science and doctors are not scientists. There is a large dose of tradition and conventional wisdom that goes on. Clinical studies aren't always possible owing to ethics considerations (e.g. not treating a group of patients, even though a treatment exists, so that you can gauge the effectiveness of some therapy on another group)

 

 

The understanding of the human body and medicine is too much in renaissance time do to the fact 100 or 150 years ago people know very little and very very very much so crude.The understanding of electronics, building engineering,physics and chemistry is much more advance.

[CharonY]

Several good points. Ideally, the press release should undergo similar scrutiny as peer review. Maybe even more considering that it is there to inform non-scientists. Unfortunately few people (including the news outlets as well as the scientists themselves) tend to bother. Second thing regarding medicine: the problem is the biology. We not bits and pieces. In fact, we have gained an enormous amount of information. However, we are still unable to put everything together to have e.g. a working model of anything but the most simple processes.

That is why people were pulling in informaticians, chemists and physicists to solve biological questions. While many of these approaches opened up new avenues of research, they were to date not much more successful as a whole. The idea is to build a foundation for systems biology and used that platform to accelerate research. However, for various scientific as well as political reasons this still fails to materialize.

 

Another important point is that in humans (as already pointed out) only association or similar studies can be conducted. These generally only allow the detection of correlations, but not causations. Statistically, most of these studies (or rather their inferences) will eventually be proven wrong.

Or to put it simple, biology is bloody complex.

Edited November 5, 2010 by CharonY

[ajb]

Or to put it simple, biology is bloody complex.

 

I think this should be the take home message of this thread.

 

Also one must acknowledge that medicine is not strictly science and doctors are not scientists.

 

Maybe off topic, but how do medical doctors think of themselves in this respect? (I have yet to ask one, I fear my question may be construed as an insult! Brain surgery is brain surgery, but it is not exactly rocket science is it? LOL )

[CharonY]

Well, it depends. Physicians themselves generally do not perceive themselves as scientists. However, there are MDs involved in certain type of studies, including e.g. epidemiological or clinical ones. Depending on their role they either see themselves as scientists (if they are the PIs) or see themselves in an advisory role.

[nec209]

Unfortunately few people (including the news outlets as well as the scientists themselves) tend to bother

 

Why is it taboo to do research into these things?

 

In fact, we have gained an enormous amount of information. However, we are still unable to put everything together to have e.g. a working model of anything but the most simple processes

 

Well more people get into physics and theoretical physics than medical or biological researcher .Also physics and theoretical physics get more money.

Edited November 7, 2010 by nec209

[CharonY]

Why is it taboo to do research into these things?

 

 

 

Well more people get into physics and theoretical physics than medical or biological researcher .Also physics and theoretical physics get more money.

 

It is not a taboo, but rather due to the fact that more complex science makes bad soundbites. Unfortunately news outlets as well as their audience prefer the latter. You have to see it like that: a paper of, say, six pages of length, is often very condensed, using a language that is easily accessible to the target audience (other scientists in the field). In order to deconvolute it in a way that everyone understands it, one has to add more info, describe certain things in more detail, easily bloating up the whole info to even more pages. Now, how many people would read that, I wonder?

 

Also it is somewhat less of a money problem, but rather one of methodologies. As the problems get more complex, one needs new approaches and not necessarily more bodies. Also, I would be surprised if there are more physicists than biomed researchers. The latter get recruited from a variety of fields, including biologists, biochemists, medical scientists, biophysicists and bioinformaticians, to name a few.

[timo]

I've heard those theoretical physicists are paid so good that they can afford a warm meal every day.

 

EDIT: What the heck? you killed Zoidberg with the forum update!

Edited November 7, 2010 by timo

[padren]

To a degree as well, the devil is in the details of how the statements are qualified, and what the "implied intention" of the language is:

 

Many scientist say stress can cause gray hair or thin,bold hair

 

Many scientist say smoking pot can lead to lung cancer or kill brain cells and lead to short term memory proccessing problem.

 

Many scientist say brain cells ,heart cells and the spine do not devide or grow and injury is for life.

 

Many scientist say too much cell phone can lead to cancer.

 

Many scientist say stress or anger can cause ulcers and hernia.

 

Many scientist say kidney stones is caused by stress,anger or junk food.

 

With reference to these "can cause/can lead" statements, if there is any way for A to cause B then technically it is correct, but how much stress does it take to cause even one gray hair, and how much of the population responds in this way to stress? One out of a billion? If you found one of the six people on Earth where stress causes gray hair - you can say the statement is correct. It appears to be true (based solely on anecdotal evidence from my father during my teen years) for more than one out of a billion, but it's really easy to end up lost in the ambiguities of the statement.

 

Is the statement about pot smoking qualified against the risks of lung cancer just by the virtue of habitually lighting stuff on fire to inhale it? For all I know, the statement is "true" but also true for people who take ashes out of their fireplace, put them in a paper bag and "huff" them. There isn't enough information in the statement to qualify the claim.

 

Too much cell phone use doesn't qualify what kind of cellphones, what "too much" is, what the resulting suspected rise in cancer risk is - again, the statement could be true but you have to go beyond the sparse qualifiers in the statement.

 

Kidney stones (with the statement "is caused by") implies that while they are caused by those, they are not exclusively caused by those factors. We also don't qualify what kinds of "junk food" are discussed.

 

With regards to heart cells, brain cells, and the spine (specifically the spinal cord if I read your intentions right) it may be fair to say they do not heal in the manner that other cells do. It doesn't however qualify if they are so unlikely to divide that even though they do, they cannot do so in a manner to repair damage. It doesn't qualify if they can be triggered to divide with therapies.

 

 

 

To agree with what others already said about medical science, there is a difference in my mind (at least) between medical science and medical research - you can research the affect of a drug on rats, based on known similarities with human biology, but you are still working pretty far removed from a pure theory understanding of the drug in question. By this I mean, you may see that a compound has similar properties and makeup to a known fever reducer, but does that mean the exact reason why that known fever reducer is effective? We have figured it out to a point, but if we understood biology completely, it would be called chemistry, and if we understood that completely it would be called physics.

 

 

Take other aspects of science today though: micro-computing, fiber-optics, medical diagnostics (MRI/etc) and rocket science - planes keep flying, computers keep working (well enough) and all kinds of things work because science is stronger than it has ever been.

 

When it comes to reporting on science though, whenever claims like the ones you posted are made in the media there will be contention, because the claim is so vague that it is ambiguous, and people will disagree over what the implied meanings are. If these same people were to scientifically debate the topic, they would (probably) end up agreeing that "X shows a correlation to a [N-M] rise in Y" and then disagree on the implications...or disagree about the veracity of the study that showed the correlation. Again, these sorts of debates are usually heard by the media as a whoosh when it sails over their heads, before they try to find a way to work it into a public-friendly anecdotal fact on par with their dad's stress/hair color research.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I've heard those theoretical physicists are paid so good that they can afford a warm meal every day.

 

EDIT: What the heck? you killed Zoidberg with the forum update!

 

Lies.

 

(heh, I forgot about that BBCode, took a while to make it work)

[needimprovement]

Clinical studies aren't always possible owing to ethics considerations (e.g. not treating a group of patients, even though a treatment exists, so that you can gauge the effectiveness of some therapy on another group)

Are there any other accepted methods for determining the effectiveness of a treatment?

[CharonY]

The gold standard is generally to compare it to a placebo group.

[needimprovement]

Clinical studies aren't always possible owing to ethics considerations (e.g. not treating a group of patients, even though a treatment exists, so that you can gauge the effectiveness of some therapy on another group)

Are there any other accepted methods for determining the effectiveness of a treatment?

The gold standard is generally to compare it to a placebo group.

CharonY has already explained the concept of comparing to a placebo or are in the treatment group.

 

Mnay scientist say this is true and many say this is a myth.

 

What is wrong with sciance today? How hard would it be to prove this true or false? Why do sciance do not want to look into this?

But I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. How hard would it be to prove what true or false? Who says that (whatever it is) is a myth, and why?

[ajb]

Well more people get into physics and theoretical physics than medical or biological researcher .Also physics and theoretical physics get more money.

 

That is not my overall impression, of theoretical and mathematical physics at least. I see far more biology and medical jobs advertised. Even a lot of those I see listed under mathematics and computing are really biology/medical jobs.

[needimprovement]

news stations just need a headline once they are proven wrong they don't correct their error

Agreed.

 

Slightly off topic.

 

I wonder if any heads will roll for this headline.

 

"Bomb stokes fears Islamists expanding in Pakistan" as posted on Yahoo news story by AFP (Agence France-Presse).

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/pakistanunrestkarachi

[swansont]

That is not my overall impression, of theoretical and mathematical physics at least. I see far more biology and medical jobs advertised. Even a lot of those I see listed under mathematics and computing are really biology/medical jobs.

 

I concur. Biology and medicine are often a lot easier to justify under the "what good is that?" heading. The line from discovery to application is usually more direct. In the US , the NIH's budget is north of $30 billion. NSF got $7 billion. There are, of course, other funding sources, but that gives you a glimpse of the landscape.