The Nature of the Knowledge of Science
We all know that
science affects us all everyday, but most people often feel cut off from
science because they do not connect to the facts that they see around them.
Understanding science gives users an inside look at the general principles,
methods, and motivations that underlie all of science. I believe that science is
an intensely human endeavor - a study on human origins and the effect of
scientific evidence in shaping our current understanding of
ourselves.
It
is a well-known fact that for most of us, science arrives in our lives packaged
neatly as fact. But how has this been? For centuries, science has been an
active process of observation and investigation.
Modern science has
been regarded as both a model of democratic self-governance and an activity
requiring and facilitating democratic practices in its supporting social
context. In this perspective, science is seen as embedded in and dependent on
its supporting social context, but insulated in its practices from the
influence of that context. As the reach of science and science-based
technologies has extended further into the economy and daily life of industrialized
societies, new attention is paid to the governance of science. Regardless of
one's views about the social character of knowledge, there are further
questions concerning what research to pursue, what social resources to devote
to it, who should make such decisions, and how.
Definitely,
I too am of the opinion that the knowledge of scientific data is the gateway to inquiry. The real time data
tracking of blue fin tuna, sea turtles, sharks and many other large sea animals
has been possible through the advancements made by science. Closer home, I can
trace the knowledge of science in our everyday lives – the study of velocity,
speed, magnetism and so on.
One of the biggest
boons of this century has been the invention of the Internet. Without the
computer and the Internet, life was very repetitive, monotonous and quite slow.
However, science has enabled scientists and the common man to arrive on the
same platform of speed and communicate across vast distances with the help of
the Internet. Though students can master only a small fraction of scientific
knowledge in the course of their schooling, outside school, they must adopt
positions on public issues that turn on controversial points.
It
is imperative to realize that science and the policies derived from it are
separate. Science is concerned with the best way to answer a given question,
but it is ethically neutral and not a method for either deciding which
questions should be asked or determining the acceptable risks over perceived
benefits of new technologies. These considerations require public, scientific
and political opinion allied to scientific fact. Policy-makers, keen to
cultivate an authoritative stance, often co-opt scientific findings to validate
policy. More sinisterly, dissenting scientific opinion is sometimes suppressed
to divert attention from unwelcome truths.
In the second half of
the 20th century, we see the emergence of Big Science, which is the
organization of large numbers of scientists bringing different bodies of
expertise to a common research project. Based on the original Manhattan
Project, Big Science was undertaken during the Second World War to develop an
atomic weapon. Theoretical and experimental physicists have also undertaken
experiments for the Human Genome Project, and have taken on some of the
properties of Big Science, requiring multiple forms of expertise. However, the
dependence of research on central funding bodies prompts questions about the
degree of independence of contemporary scientific knowledge from its social and
economic context.
At
the present time, it is incumbent upon the scientific establishment to allay
public fears and win back crucial public trust before the situation becomes
irrevocable. The nascent century has been heralded as the new age of biology,
but much of the hoped-for progress will depend on the public's explicit assent
for the endeavors science will undertake. In all such endeavours, public
opinion will be the final arbiter.
Do I trust scientific data?
The
answer to this question is yes and no. I trust scientific facts but when such
terms as
“scientific evidence” is thrown about like a hot potato during discussions of
major environmental, health or social issues, I begin to doubt the basis of
such evidences. For example – Climate Change and the European Unions’s ban on
neonitinoid pesticides and the World Health Organisations’s decision to ban
certain medicinal drugs such as ‘Nice’ from Indian markets is done to suit the
economics of the developed countries . It is in instances such as these that I
distrust scientific research and the continuous laboratory experiments and the
results.
If a researcher wants to prove that use of a pesticide does not
affect bees flying about in the environment where the chemical neonitinoid
pesticide is normally used, they will need to test two different scenarios. One
hive of bees will have to go about their business in the field while being
exposed to the pesticide. A second hive of bees will have to be in the same
general environmental location as the first hive (to ensure both hives
experience the same overall living conditions), but remain completely
uncontaminated by the pesticide throughout the test.It’s obvious how impossible this would be to manage under natural conditions, where no one can control the drift of chemical droplets or the movement of tiny insects across the landscape! In this case, completely field-based studies may not exist, but it would be misleading to say that a “lack of field studies” means that the pesticide does not affect bees.
I am convinced that the
socio-economic consequences of science are responsible for the use and abuse of
science. In a materialistic world, scientific data and laboratory experiments
are often manipulated to suit the economic downturns or upturns of society. In
such a scenario, how do I trust the knowledge of science totally? We need to be
realistic in our trust of scientists because they are human with sin natures
just as the rest of the human population, As I stated, I do not doubt the power
of science, but the interpretations of scientific data. And, like all other
things in the world, I believe that scientific data, research and the
all-encompassing reach of science too is relative too.
