User login
Contrary to popular belief, great scientists do not spend their days proving that their new ideas are correct. That is just the romantic portrait of the field that is taught to schoolchildren. The reality is that great scientists do everything they can think of to disprove their theories. They exhaustively consider all other plausible explanations, challenge any potential bias in their methodology, rule out random flukes in the data collection, and refine any error in the data measurement. Only after doing all that, when no other conclusion is possible, do true scientists publish their new theories as truth. Then they await confirmation from their peers.
That is the philosophy behind the modern scientific method. In the hard sciences like chemistry and physics, this paradigm is reinforced because a scientist stakes his or her reputation on every publication. Funding from various government agencies often is controlled by peers in the field. If published work is inaccurate, the likelihood of receiving funding is markedly diminished.
Medicine has a long history of being biased by the belief that its therapies work. Even faith healers who consider themselves scientists will cite repeated examples of personal success as evidence that their approach works. However, they were looking for confirmation. To truly be a scientist, one cannot seek to affirm one’s beliefs. One must to the best of one’s ability seek to disprove them.
In 2016, postmodern voices have challenged the very existence of truth. The falsehoods rampant in politics have spilled over into a distrust of science. This distrust is manifest in vaccine deniers and the debate about climate change. There are a few charlatans and mercenaries in every field who sell their soul and skills to the highest bidder. Science is no exception. These disreputable scientists seek to obfuscate rather than clarify. They have been employed by the tobacco industry, the oil industry, and various groups with agendas other than seeking truth. They, with the help of weak journalism, have tainted the perception of science in the public arena. The uproar has prominent scientists defending the scientific method and arguing for science as the determiner of facts. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
In the 19th century, hawking snake oil was big business. In the early 20th century, the ethical drug industry was created in the United States. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 empowered the Food and Drug Administration to regulate what has become 25% of U.S. industry. Those regulations demand honest labeling, good manufacturing processes, proof of efficacy, and an assessment of safety. The FDA deals with many stakeholders in the process for approving new drugs. The system is an imperfect balance between getting lifesaving new discoveries to market quickly while avoiding disasters. The most recent news has been the head of the FDA defending the need for proof of effectiveness in addition to proof of safety.
Even after a year in which truth seemed elusive and science hit a low point in prestige, it is still bizarre to me that the government would consider turning the drug industry into one in which proof of effectiveness is not a minimum requirement. That is postmodern thinking run amok. But the root of the problem lies deeper. When scientists stop being skeptics and instead focus on finding something publishable, the temptation is already leading them along the road illuminated by Dante Alighieri.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis.
Contrary to popular belief, great scientists do not spend their days proving that their new ideas are correct. That is just the romantic portrait of the field that is taught to schoolchildren. The reality is that great scientists do everything they can think of to disprove their theories. They exhaustively consider all other plausible explanations, challenge any potential bias in their methodology, rule out random flukes in the data collection, and refine any error in the data measurement. Only after doing all that, when no other conclusion is possible, do true scientists publish their new theories as truth. Then they await confirmation from their peers.
That is the philosophy behind the modern scientific method. In the hard sciences like chemistry and physics, this paradigm is reinforced because a scientist stakes his or her reputation on every publication. Funding from various government agencies often is controlled by peers in the field. If published work is inaccurate, the likelihood of receiving funding is markedly diminished.
Medicine has a long history of being biased by the belief that its therapies work. Even faith healers who consider themselves scientists will cite repeated examples of personal success as evidence that their approach works. However, they were looking for confirmation. To truly be a scientist, one cannot seek to affirm one’s beliefs. One must to the best of one’s ability seek to disprove them.
In 2016, postmodern voices have challenged the very existence of truth. The falsehoods rampant in politics have spilled over into a distrust of science. This distrust is manifest in vaccine deniers and the debate about climate change. There are a few charlatans and mercenaries in every field who sell their soul and skills to the highest bidder. Science is no exception. These disreputable scientists seek to obfuscate rather than clarify. They have been employed by the tobacco industry, the oil industry, and various groups with agendas other than seeking truth. They, with the help of weak journalism, have tainted the perception of science in the public arena. The uproar has prominent scientists defending the scientific method and arguing for science as the determiner of facts. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
In the 19th century, hawking snake oil was big business. In the early 20th century, the ethical drug industry was created in the United States. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 empowered the Food and Drug Administration to regulate what has become 25% of U.S. industry. Those regulations demand honest labeling, good manufacturing processes, proof of efficacy, and an assessment of safety. The FDA deals with many stakeholders in the process for approving new drugs. The system is an imperfect balance between getting lifesaving new discoveries to market quickly while avoiding disasters. The most recent news has been the head of the FDA defending the need for proof of effectiveness in addition to proof of safety.
Even after a year in which truth seemed elusive and science hit a low point in prestige, it is still bizarre to me that the government would consider turning the drug industry into one in which proof of effectiveness is not a minimum requirement. That is postmodern thinking run amok. But the root of the problem lies deeper. When scientists stop being skeptics and instead focus on finding something publishable, the temptation is already leading them along the road illuminated by Dante Alighieri.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis.
Contrary to popular belief, great scientists do not spend their days proving that their new ideas are correct. That is just the romantic portrait of the field that is taught to schoolchildren. The reality is that great scientists do everything they can think of to disprove their theories. They exhaustively consider all other plausible explanations, challenge any potential bias in their methodology, rule out random flukes in the data collection, and refine any error in the data measurement. Only after doing all that, when no other conclusion is possible, do true scientists publish their new theories as truth. Then they await confirmation from their peers.
That is the philosophy behind the modern scientific method. In the hard sciences like chemistry and physics, this paradigm is reinforced because a scientist stakes his or her reputation on every publication. Funding from various government agencies often is controlled by peers in the field. If published work is inaccurate, the likelihood of receiving funding is markedly diminished.
Medicine has a long history of being biased by the belief that its therapies work. Even faith healers who consider themselves scientists will cite repeated examples of personal success as evidence that their approach works. However, they were looking for confirmation. To truly be a scientist, one cannot seek to affirm one’s beliefs. One must to the best of one’s ability seek to disprove them.
In 2016, postmodern voices have challenged the very existence of truth. The falsehoods rampant in politics have spilled over into a distrust of science. This distrust is manifest in vaccine deniers and the debate about climate change. There are a few charlatans and mercenaries in every field who sell their soul and skills to the highest bidder. Science is no exception. These disreputable scientists seek to obfuscate rather than clarify. They have been employed by the tobacco industry, the oil industry, and various groups with agendas other than seeking truth. They, with the help of weak journalism, have tainted the perception of science in the public arena. The uproar has prominent scientists defending the scientific method and arguing for science as the determiner of facts. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
In the 19th century, hawking snake oil was big business. In the early 20th century, the ethical drug industry was created in the United States. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 empowered the Food and Drug Administration to regulate what has become 25% of U.S. industry. Those regulations demand honest labeling, good manufacturing processes, proof of efficacy, and an assessment of safety. The FDA deals with many stakeholders in the process for approving new drugs. The system is an imperfect balance between getting lifesaving new discoveries to market quickly while avoiding disasters. The most recent news has been the head of the FDA defending the need for proof of effectiveness in addition to proof of safety.
Even after a year in which truth seemed elusive and science hit a low point in prestige, it is still bizarre to me that the government would consider turning the drug industry into one in which proof of effectiveness is not a minimum requirement. That is postmodern thinking run amok. But the root of the problem lies deeper. When scientists stop being skeptics and instead focus on finding something publishable, the temptation is already leading them along the road illuminated by Dante Alighieri.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis.