This is a response to a 2003 New York Times article Does Science Matter? by William J. Broad and James Glanz. To read the article click this link. Does Science Matter?

The question is not “Does science matter?”, such a question is ludicrous. Science has always mattered, as the scientific method forms the crucibles of fact. It provides us with a system to discover the world around us. The systematic thinking and actions of this method allow all people to join in the investigation of questions about who we are and where we come from. Because of science’s inquisitive abilities, it enables us to create incredible technologies that better the health of society and the environment.

We have developed preventative care, like vaccines, but when that fails we also have treatments and medicines enabling us to live long prosperous lives. The list of scientific discoveries that further our understanding of the world and benefit us is extensive. The scientific method can be tested and built upon, making the accumulation of useful knowledge infinite.

The scientific method that furthers our understanding of ourselves, the world and the universe, the method. It improves personal and societal health and is therefore absolutely relevant. Unfortunately, the authors, William Broad and James Glanz base science’s supposed irrelevance in its implementation. The act of scientific research and observation, of executing the scientific method, is purely beneficial. Blaming science for health problems and environmental destruction is misdirected. In reality, industry has implemented scientific discoveries in destructive ways because they value one thing: their bottom line. Instead of building profit through sustainable practices and long term thinking, companies obsess over short term gain. However science is not always a speedy endeavor and frequently disproves itself. This process is crucial to obtain factual results, in turn these results provide the ideas and facts that industry can implement. But when companies do not allow the process to take place, they authorize harmful technologies based on incomplete science.

In addition, the privately funded research is recklessly applied especially when it benefits a company. The most crucial part of the scientific method, recreating and falsifying an experiment, is lacking due to misguided intentions. In the competition of a capitalist market, it is actually beneficial for a company to conceal research results if they can benefit the company. Shielding science can give a company a competitive advantage in the market. Therefore to preserve the relevancy of science to the public and the scientific method itself, science must be exposed from the secret laboratories of industry and thrust into the public. I do not underestimate the force of capitalism to determine success and failure. But when public and environmental health determine industrial success, government regulation and publicly funded science is absolutely necessary to enforce properly practiced scientific research.

There are no evil scientists, just wrongful application.  Science will always be relevant, it will always matter, as long as we preserve the integrity of the scientific method and implement it in ways that are relevant our society rather than private interest.

We Stopped Dreaming- Neil deGrasse Tyson (the link below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldyoHaktv5U