Science research the bad the good and the ugly

 

Study 5 years for two degrees

Study 5 more for PhD

Join lab, start working

Spend years studying problem

Form hypothesis, gather

evidence.

Test hypothesis, form

conclusions.

Report findings, clear peer review.

Findings published, reported in

press.

Guy on Internet: "Bullshit".

(Paraphrasing science journalist Frank Swain)

Most people dont know how science research works. The major findings are often presented by science journalist to the public through the media.

Often science journalists don't understand the science they report. Even if they have a bachelors degree in one of the sciences like biochemistry, it doesn't give them the understanding of other fields. It's why I always tell people to do a quick search on the background of who is writing the article.

There are many examples, but the one that comes to mind was in 2009 when a NASA scientist had discovered a bacteria with a non carbon based gene sequence. Exciting news, but the media sensationalized it and presented it as an extra terrestrial  lifeform.

Long story short. Nasa was premature in publishing it as it had likely discovered an extremophile. (Life that can live in toxic environments). At the time, nasa was fighting to maintain funding for its space program before corporations like Amazon's blue dragon and the other one took over. The article was retracted last year. It happens. Poor research methods. Political pressure. There are many reasons.

Studying extremophiles is important. Hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria gobble up.......OIL SPILLS.Whoopwhoop. They've been around for millions of years splitting natural oil seeps into co2 and water. If there's a food source something will evolve to eat it. In fact, when major oil spills happen we've been using dispersants to thin out the oil film which interferes with the natural clean up crew. Due to underfunding research has been slow. Scientists have known about them since at least the 1980s.

Alcanivorax borkumensis stays dormant until an oil spill happens then multiplies very quickly to feast and clean, then goes dormant again.

When scientists screw up there's mistrust. When they discover something beneficial it barely makes it into the news, especially when there's no money to be made.

Which reminds me of the start up biotech theranos (recommend looking it up). The device never existed. I thought it was ridiculous scifi. How can investors be so stupid? The scientists that worked there were silenced through NDAs. Well if you scam and screw the Waltons and Rupert Murdoch out of a billion...

Smart watches are similar. I had to laugh when a blogger wrote that she wears hers while knitting because it measures the kinetics of sitting on a couch as exercise.

When corporations do it it's fine in the public eye, but when a scientist makes an unintentional mistake. The public questions why it's being funded. Sometimes it's important to debunk and only public funding can achieve that.

The recent example was a very good study by a team whose hypothesis was that Vit D supplements may protect against the big C. After 10 years no correlation was found. Basically it doesn't. It does have other benefits. The researchers name is JoAnnManson.

Added after a question in comments:

Bacteria who eat plastic where discovered only a decade ago. I could be wrong but seem to recall an article about designer bacteria. Basically man-made. The problem is containment. We use polymers in everything. How would we stop them or use them to eat plastic bags/trash only?