Personally, I am appalled ! I worked in a government lab to develop Sar beacons that were going to be given away for the public good..... and nobody tried to bribe me!
Upvote
0
Well true. But I was talking from personal experience. Dodgy as in a lot of placesOur police and armed forces are on the whole a good bunch too. But, you might not think so on a wider international scale if you lived in Hong Kong, various Arab countries etc.
You have just written about doctors, who are trusted by about 56%, and statins, which apparently benefit about 40-50%! Perhaps, those fortunate 50% are the ones who are doing the trusting? All medications from aspirin to antibiotics to chemotherapy carry the risk of side effects. And it’s those plus sanitation that are responsible for the huge increase in life expectancy and the large number of aged photographers in CR.
As Alan F pointed out, scientific practice is self-correcting. What counts as true is the consensus opinion which can emerge only after qualified scientists hash out the relevant evidence and conjectures. Thus, we know that a super-majority of climate scientists affirm the climate change thesis. This established fact does not mean the deniers lack integrity or are incompetent. What it does mean to the deneying lay-person is that they ought to examine the source of their disbelief because most of those qualified to judge the matter believe otherwise. It is rational for the lay-person to confidently choose to believe the consensus opinion of the scientists.
The primary aim of most scientists is to pursue science for its own sake whereas the primary goal in some, but by no means all, other activities is to make money, and make money by any means or exercise power. Some scientists may be corrupted and even dishonest, and some are incompetent but the goal is the pursuit of truth and those who let the side down are not the mainstream. And similar worthy goals apply to people who work in many other activities as well.
I think that the number of actual scientists who twist things is relatively small, perhaps a few hundred out of a huge number. There are, in fact, a group of people who make a very good living as expert witnesses. They are basically people who have a talent to seem truthful, and to present information in a clear, simple, and beliveable fashion. Having impeccable credentials is mandatory, but they have to simplify the facts for the public and know how to work with attorneys to omit facts that may conflict with what they present. The best ones have a long waiting list of clients. I know one retired police officer who made a fair living by testifying in court about the mundane facts involving auto accidents, calculating likely speed based on skid marks, weather, type of pavement, etc. If you wanted to show that the party was or was not speeding, you hired him to testify. If his facts did not support your case, you paid him and sent him on his way, he never testified.
Most Scientists work in the trenches and do not appear on TV Commercials or in trials where they get paid for their story telling expertise. I worked for a large company which had a very large number of engineers and scientists. I was not aware of any of them appearing in TV Commercials, but some may have been forced to testify in court.
One who worked for me did get interviewed for a Newspaper article investigating a whistle blower claim. His approach was to bring the reporter into the lab and show him everything about the product, including the failures induced in the lab and how they were done. (The whistle blower was a lab tech who did not understand that testing parts to destruction in a lab meant they were unsafe). The reporter was impressed by his openness and willingness to cooperate and show how the failure in the lab led to a modified product. What was going to be a critical article became a positive one because no information was held back by the Scientist.
Personally, I am appalled ! I worked in a government lab to develop Sar beacons that were going to be given away for the public good..... and nobody tried to bribe me!
More recently, the National Institute of Health has agreed with most of the tennents presented in these articles over a decade earlier.
Inflammation, not Cholesterol, Is a Cause of Chronic Disease
Delivering viable products on the one hand and successfully obtaining grants on the other are all part of the process of surveillance of science. The award of a grant depends on stringent review of the originality and feasibility of the proposal and the reputation of the applicant in delivering the goods and being honest. Any hint of previous malpractice will lead to the grant not being funded. The better the reputation of a scientist, the better the chance of funding. It pays to be trustworthy in science."Scientists" working for private enterprises developing products are more engineers than scientists, regardless of what their degree is. They are also motivated by the knowledge that what they do must produce a viable product in order for their company to continue funding their endeavors.
Research scientists working in grant-financed environments are motivated by giving the grantor what they want, whether that is the unbiased truth or a preconceived conclusion, in order to continue the flow of dollars to their research institution.
See the opening post:"It's true after all, scientists are the most trusted group, and advertising executives are down there with Government ministers and politicians. Average members of the public don't do too badly either, well above journalists. Pity Youtubers weren't ranked. So when it comes to considering the merits of cameras and lenses, you know whom to trust more!"Why is this in the EOS bodies rumor thread?
In the case of tobacco industry, the company-sponsored research itself was generally honest, but the results were privately owned by the companies whose execs and lawyers were deciding what to publish and what to hide, so only the outliers favorable to the tobacco industry were published.The need for funding to do any appreciable amount of scientific research is a powerful influence on scientists, whether they admit it or not.
I think you misunderstand what "evolutionarily wired instinct" is.Just as what happens in pretty much every other profession is also driven by the self-preservation instinct with which we are all evolutionarily wired.
.... In the link you cite, the review article was written by scientists at the University of Limerick ....
Oh, that reminds me of...When most people quit smoking, they gain weight. Too much weight is bad for your health.
I think it was Camels that advertised that some large percent of doctors smoked their brand. And then there was the advertising slogan, "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet."
According to the study, commissioned by a major American tobacco company and released in Prague last week, the negative economic effects of smoking in the Czech Republic are generously outweighed by financial benefits to government coffers. The study said smoking-related taxes pump more than 20 billion CZK (or 500 million USD) into the public treasury annually. In addition, the report says, on a purely economic point of view, the early deaths of smokers reduce government expenses for pensions and old-age housing by more than one billion crowns a year. And that outweighs the country's estimated annual loss of 15 and a half billion crowns linked to smoking-related health-care, worker absenteeism, income taxes lost due to death, and the costs of smoking-sparked fires.
Lots of people used to smoke, and Doctors were among them. Most doctors are not scientists, there was little research available during the period when Doctors and many others including scientists were hooked. I grew up watching mom and dad smoke in the 1940's and 1950's. That made me decide to avoid smoking. It was responsible for moms early death.When most people quit smoking, they gain weight. Too much weight is bad for your health.
I think it was Camels that advertised that some large percent of doctors smoked their brand. And then there was the advertising slogan, "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet."
Delivering viable products on the one hand and successfully obtaining grants on the other are all part of the process of surveillance of science. The award of a grant depends on stringent review of the originality and feasibility of the proposal and the reputation of the applicant in delivering the goods and being honest. Any hint of previous malpractice will lead to the grant not being funded. The better the reputation of a scientist, the better the chance of funding. It pays to be trustworthy in science.