How Reliable is Science Today?
Maybe not so much
Think back to your physics labs in high school. I am sure you remember how frustrating it was that the results of your experiments never worked as neatly as the physics equations said they should. I am sure all of us were tempted at some point to change our experimental results. I was. If we didn’t outright change the data, we might have been tempted to discard some results and conduct more tests to get an outcome that more closely aligned with the equations. At the time we were only trying to achieve good grades or do what was expected of us.
Professional scientists have a much bigger stake. Their reputations, their funding and their livelihoods depend on their results. So what happens if their experiments are giving answers that are contrary to “known” theories? What does that mean about them as researchers? Are they sloppy in their work? Why should anyone fund them or employ them if they cannot do experiments right? So, what do they do with this questionable data? Do they throw out the results from the worst test runs and keep doing tests until they get data that seems right? Do they make a few changes to the data? Nobody would know.
So, the problem with science is that it is conducted by humans who are not gods but are fallible and weak like the rest of us. It is difficult for scientists to get funding, to get published, to achieve prestige. Success involves fitting into a discipline’s scientific community and avoiding appearing stupid in front of colleagues. Research that does not fit accepted beliefs may not be published, may meet increased scrutiny and ridicule and may deem one unfit for further grants. Scientists publish only a small percentage of their experimental data. According to Rupert Sheldrake, a British scientist himself, it may be as little as 5% to 10%.
Scientists are more likely to publish their ‘best’ results, rather than negative or inconclusive findings. . .In addition, scientific journals are often unwilling to publish negative results.[1]
This means that scientists are not always sharing the whole truth of their work, but often a prettified set of data that fits known conventional thinking or desired results. Just like we did in high school physics class.
Science would be stellar if it were done by gods. But the problem is that science is human, and with humans you get interference from politics and money. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. made his career bringing lawsuits against large corporations primarily for polluting the environment. During an interview he said:
But scientists are corruptible. And the way that I can tell you that is that I’ve brought over 500. . .[lawsuits] and almost all of them involve scientific controversies. And there are scientists on both sides in every one. And when we sued Monsanto, on the Monsanto side, there was a Yale scientist, a Stanford scientist, and a Harvard scientist. And on our side, there was a Yale, Stanford and Harvard scientist. And they were saying exactly opposite things. In fact, there’s a word for those kind [sic] of scientists who take money for their opinion, and the word is biostitutes. And they are very, very common. And I’ve been dealing them with them my whole career.[2]
Kennedy experienced the impact of money on science. Pay the scientist and they will tell you what you want to hear. Isn’t that what we see on both sides of the climate change debate? There are thousands of scientists on both sides of the controversy. Are they all speaking the truth?
Science has also become corporate. In the past, science was mostly supported through private patronage, or individual scientists paid for their research themselves. Galileo’s work, for example, was funded mostly by wealthy patrons, including the Pope. Scientific discoveries today require more costly equipment and facilities. Science has become expensive. Today, for the most part, it is funded by corporations, government agencies, institutions and foundations. Scientists may be employees of corporations or may work for an institute and compete for grant funding. This unfortunate fusion of money and science leads to bias. If you are paid by your employer to prove that a new drug is safe and effective and you have a track record of proving new drugs are not safe or effective, soon you may be looking for a new position. If you are paid by the oil industry to disprove climate change, you better deliver or look for another job. In a perfect world, with each new discovery, scientific theories would become more applicable to the world and science would lead us closer to the truth. But because science is tainted with money, we have less reason to believe its findings or put faith in it.
Political influence is even worse than financial influence. Either believe or suffer the consequences. Can you think of any scientific controversies that are clouded by politics today? Are there any science-based statements you think are untrue; but in the current political environment, you know it is best to keep silent?
This is much like what living under the Church was like in the fifth century. Speak out and be a martyr or keep silent and maintain your position, your possessions and your life. Do you think those high church officials who attended those church councils were all in earnest. Certainly, they must have included weak or wily ones who maintained their status by assenting to whatever was required of them. Is there one God or three Gods in One? Is climate change caused by humans or is it not? Does the COVID-19 vaccine prevent contracting the virus or does it not?
[1] Sheldrake, The Science Delusion, p. 308.
[2] “Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “CIA, Power, Corruption, War, Freedom, and Meaning,” Lex Fridman Podcast #388, lexfridman.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-transcript.