...The landscape of science communication resounds with a cacophony of credible and incredible voices. Such voices fill the demands of those who do not have direct access to the practice of science. Some of these voices come from the scientific community. However, as institutional scientific endeavours become increasingly specialised, expensive, and protective, the public becomes progressively dependent upon the honesty of researchers and peer review. The wizard has come out, yet there is still much happening behind the screen. The average person does not have the qualification or resources to partake in direct research; therefore, the public relies both on researchers to have integrity and on peer review to increase the quality of research. Anyone so inclined may easily verify the theory of gravity, yet few have access to the biotechnology laboratory needed to verify the safety and efficacy of vaccines, genetically modified food, or Soylent pink. Scientists, therefore, need to diligently protect the fragile trust if expecting the public to base decisions on researcher findings and expertise (Frewer, 2004; Bucchi, 2008)...
Read More @ Generically Memeified Organisations - Skepti-Forum:
No comments:
Post a Comment