Should We Change The Growing Trend Of Biased Scientific Research? Essay

Joel Achenbach, the author of the article, “Why Do Reasonable People Doubt Science?” starts of by saying that in today's era the people often disagree with scientific reasoning. The world we live in today is so full of problems it's hard to tell what is real anymore. The decision is left to the individual to decide what to believe is true or false, and then how there going to put their beliefs into action. Achenbach later explains in his article that the scientific method pushes back all the opinions and unfolds the real truth.

Sometimes careless science publishing can weaken the public’s confidence in science and the government. The Media is enormously powerful and leading and will influence people’s opinions on everything. There are plenty of stories in the media that will change the public’s perception of science or even make them see a new perception. Sometimes these stories are just written to scare the public into believing a certain thing just so they can sell their stories.

Brian Caswell’s “A Cage of Butterflies”(1992) primarily explores how scientific research can be corrupted by the profit motive using Raecorp incorporated as the source of this corruption. Also, these techniques are used

The documentary “Merchants of Doubt” directed by Robert Keener describes the unethical practices of manipulating scientific data to market unsafe products. It explains the use of public relations and media to divert the health risk involved in smoking in order to protect the industry. The documentary exposes how companies hire a third party, presented as credible scientific expert, to mislead people about the company’s unsafe products. Those people selling lies to cover for the company’s wrongdoing are called “merchants of doubt”. They create a sense of doubt in the veracity of the scientific data and results collected by the scientist. This strategy of creating doubt and confusion causes delay in government regulation. The documentary shows

For example,it say, “Before the Board of Regents announced its decision, the negative press about Southam’s work had gotten the attention of the NIH, which funded his research and required it's investigators to get consent for all studies involving humans.” Another example,it says, “Beecher published a detailed list of the twenty-two worst offenders, including researchers who'd injected children with hepatitis and others who'd poisoned patients under anesthesia using carbon dioxide. Southam’s study was included as example number 17.” These pieces of textual evidence show how NIH found Southam and other scientists were doing unethical

For years there has been public controversies over the advancements in science and all of the health risks that have been around, but now the use of the media has certainly boosted the amount of confusion throughout the public. Frightening stories regarding the progressions of science have been appearing online and in print. One particular example of this issue was the MMR vaccine debate. The MMR vaccine is an immunization vaccine which fights against rubella, measles, and mumps. During the 1990’s the media played a huge role in the decisions parents made regarding whether or not they allowed their children to get vaccinated. The media portrayed the MMR vaccine as having a possible link between autism. Which left the public worried about the MMR vaccine and having conflicting views and feelings towards the safety of vaccinations. In the MMR vaccine debate scientist and the media played two different roles which helped citizens make decisions regarding vaccination.

Anti-scientific bias has been an American evidence law for several reason. Many of admissibility and legal sufficiency rules have been proved to be bias in America. This bias has been an underlying issue that typically for the citizen that become potential juror because they cannot critically evaluate the evidence like a highly professional would. In the results of a national educational test, it was demonstrated that there is a widespread in the United States of scientific illiteracy. With the principle of scientific proof, there has been a lot of controversy over drugs testing presents with forensic science and the unknown of the citizen who are posed as jurors during this time. This was a debate that the scientific community could help and

However, other voices expressed that placing research in peril is the growth of anti-science movement which distract the research agenda and leaves the public ignore real threats to the public health in America.

Just a few years back some scientist from UCSF found hundreds about the Sugar Research Foundation. They tried to change what scientist said

You will probably agree it's a bad thing to make assumptions about others, but why, exactly? Well, if we're going to put others first in a way that God would want us to, we'll have to accept them and listen to their needs. Which is harder than we'd like to think it is. In theory, it's easy as ABC to say we accept everyone as they are. In reality, it can be much harder to see past that 'first thing' we might notice about them, and it can be much easier to focus on what someone might be struggling with (notice how distractions are often negative things?).

They found a correlation between Aspartame consumption and an increased risk of blood cancer; however, when they released their studies, big corporations pressured them into downplaying their findings and their results turned into Aspartame is safe.(Martino, “The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became

I was an airline employee who was loading and unloading the aircraft that day. Upon opening the cargo hold door of the aircraft, I could hear the crying meows that were coming from inside. After taking the kennels inside of the claim area, I could clearly see the large, multiple scars that covered their shaved heads and bodies. The cats seemed to avoid eye-contact or any type of interaction with me, preferring it seemed to stare blankly across the room, occasionally uttering a pitiful bellowing low, drawn out cry. These cats were not the fortunate beloved pets waiting for loving owners to come pick them up, these cats had spent their lives being sentenced for research not ever to know what life outside of it might involve. Biomedical research is wrong.

With all the bad science in the media the general public is often confused as to which are the correct choices. Educating the public to be better consumers of science would improve general health and lower the need for access to healthcare (Pincus, Esther, DeWalt, & Callahan 1998).

For example, Vedula (2012) notes that FDA guidelines state pharmaceutical companies can use peer-reviewed articles to publicize evidence of a drug’s effectiveness for off-label uses, as long as a number of conditions are met—perhaps the most essential of which is that “the information disseminated must not be false or misleading.” However, Vedula continues, there is no unyielding regulation that all research findings have to be published. Therefore, a company can still choose to selectively disseminate favorable findings. His article concludes that there is now a copious amount of evidence that suggests selective reporting of study results, based on the strength and direction of findings, is performed extensively by the pharmaceutical industry.

Within the last century scientific discovery has been growing at an exponential rate. Evolution, genetics, physics, and chemistry have all greatly affected the way people view the universe and human role in it. Furthermore, the application of scientific discoveries has physically changed society. For example, humans went from being flightless to eighty years later having transportation in super sonic jets available. Rapid scientific change has caused many issues surrounding morality and science to arise. The idea behind the skepticism is that just because something can be done doesnt mean it should be. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and cloning have all fallen under fire due to this concept. People worry that