The goal of technology is to make a difference. Yet used, the connection between scientific research and actual impact can be tenuous. For instance , when scientists discover a fresh health hazard, they are pressured to suppress or misinterpret the results of their work. Those who have vested interests in the status quo also tend to undermine and challenge groundwork that poises their own desired views of reality. For example , the germ theory of disease was a controversial idea between medical practitioners, even though the evidence is tremendous. Similarly, experts who share findings that struggle with a particular business or perhaps political fascination can deal with unreasonable critique or even censorship from the research community [2].

In the recent article, Daniel Sarewitz calls for a finish to the “mystification” of scientific disciplines and its unimpeachable seat towards the top of society’s mpgpress.com/generated-post/ cultural hierarchy. Instead, he argues, we must shift research to be narrower in solving functional problems that have an effect on people’s lives. He suggests that this will help to eliminate the number of clinical findings which might be deemed unreliable, inconclusive, or just plain incorrect.

In his book, The Science of Liberty, Broadbent writes that it is very important to all individuals to have a grasp on the task by which scientific research works so they can engage in vital thinking about the research and implications of different viewpoints. This includes finding out how to recognize because a piece of scientific disciplines has been over or underinterpreted and steering clear of the temptations to judge a manuscript by unrealistic standards.