Upload to Google Docs

Vincent Lehman
500 word first report installment.

As much as I love Dr. Aubrey de Grey's research, I wanted to do something different, and reach out to a group of future scientists in the hopes of highlighting some current and future dilemmas in terms of public opinion.
Fortunately, as it stands now, the scientific community is well regarded by the general public, and perceived as having a high level of expertise. Considering all of the hard work many of us put forth in our science based classes, and otherwise for that matter, the public is right to perceive the community as such. The beauty of science is that it's unbiased. It stands as a stone, unmarred by the effects of popular opinion, politics and et cetera. Well, maybe politics in terms of regulation and control.
The point is, much of science revolves around things that are measurable, able to be repeated and yielding the same result. From such information, we may draw evidence based conclusions, and form hypotheses.
In light of the general public approval of the scientific community, there is still work to be done to maintain that approval. Lest we fall into the categories of perceived public distrust that the medical field and big pharmacy seem to have fallen into.
There are some things we can do to mitigate such happenings as a whole. Some of you spoke on the matter during my presentation, mentioning things like early childhood education, and comprehensive reports of scientific finding for consumption by the general public. These are awesome ideas, and I don't think any person could come up with a rational disagreement.
As much as I wish I could say that all science is objective interpretation, that is not the reality of the matter. We face issues in this community. One such issue is the predatory way by which some research is conducted, or financed rather. Dr.Oliver mentioned the tobacco companies, and funding for research stating that evidence of the carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke inhalation was inconclusive. I wish there was an easy way to make such travesties not be common place in the scientific community of today, but to be honest, I can't think of any good form of effective regulation for this cycle of bad research practices. Anything short of government regulation and funding, but I mean, which is worse?
Researchers are always going to need money. Already the field is underpaid with regards to the level of education necessary to even function appropriately in research i.e. PHD. A poorly compensated demographic capable of generating "results" for a financier presents an issue. In the same way that lobbying presents an issue, one must ask. What's really going on behind closed doors. Theres a statement that goes "follow the money" in research. It applies many places, but research is a big one. Look at who's financing a specific set of studies, and then see if the studies ultimate conclusion supports the ideals/vested interest of said financier.
These sort of shady under the table dealings are the kind of actions that over time will erode public trust.