Ethical Issues in science
Scientists are human and therefore prone to human fallibility. Sometimes it is just human error. Other times it can be more problematic. In 2010 a paper in the Lancet linking the MMR vaccine to autism was retracted. Andrew Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council of knowingly including misinformation in his paper. The paper caused irreversible damage. Despite the retraction of the paper, some still believe the MMR vaccine and vaccines, in general, are dangerous to the health of their children. In 2024 a landmark paper in Alzheimer’s research was retracted for falsifying results. This paper has been cited 2500 times, and millions have been invested in researching this finding further. Although these situations are rare, it is easy to understand why people would fall a rabbit hole of disbelief. Social media further aggravate all of this.
Misinformation and Monetisation; don’t you just love social media
When was the last time you drank some green juice? Do you need to detox? Or do you need to boost your immune system? If, like me, you spend an inordinate amount of time on tiktok, you might have been exposed to the ‘wellness’ side of the algorithm. These videos claim they have just the thing to cure your cold, infection, or chronic illness, something every medical professional has never considered, all for the low price of 9.99. These videos manipulate someone’s mistrust of medicine to sell them the modern equivalent of quackery. But why are people so susceptible to scientific misinformation online?
Education, education, education (or lack thereof)
Some people who argue against science claim that since it is always changing, then it must be false. Though this is not completely wrong, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science constitutes. Our understanding of the world can never be perfect. Science constantly evolves, but that does not mean its claims are unfounded. When Jenner discovered that he could prevent smallpox by inoculating patients with cowpox scabs, he did not understand the immune system perfectly. All that mattered was that it worked, and eventually, in 1979, smallpox was eradicated. The same could be said of medicine today. In a hundred years' time, people will look back and see how far they have come. Other diseases may be eradicated, and people may live even longer and have a greater quality of life. The ever-changing nature of science is not a failure; it means that everything is open to improvement, unlike the US Constitution.
This integral misunderstanding of science is a symptom of a more significant education failure. The fact that the education system is in crisis is news to no one. In the UK and the US it is estimated that one in every five adults are functionally illiterate. With education systems underfunded not only are people unable to understand science they are also unable to comprehend and critically think about what they are reading online. Is it any wonder then, that science which requires so much understanding is so often misunderstood?