[Ken Raisen (OP)]

Public opinion always remains as a factor in a scientific research development (especially those that concerns a large population and affects society). How do people influence in the development of the field of science?

Also your opinion on human experimentation?

[Bored chemist]

A lot of science is paid for by the public- more or less directly via government grants or indirectly via the R&D done my commercial organisations.
So people can influence what gets done.

The important thing to do is, therefore, to seek to ensure that the people can make sensible decisions about it.

Human experimentation happens all the time.

[alancalverd]

Human experiments and intrusive surveys are required to pass through an independent Research Ethics Committee composed of expert and lay members. It's a free service provided by the UK Health Research Authority. The general remit is to ensure that as far as possible the risks are minimised and fully explained so that research subjects can give (or withhold) adequately informed consent. The REC decision reflects public opinion (including the value and necessity of the project) and an expert assessment of the quality and originality of the science and the likelihood of obtaining a meaningful result.

After some 20 years' work on both sides of RECs I am satisfied that they don't significantly impede progress, and frequently enhance it by suggesting methodological improvements. I have a rule of thumb that anyone who can't distinguish between principal and principle is not fit to experiment on humans (does their spellchecker distinguish hypo from hyper? Micro from macro?)  but that would exclude almost all university research proposals - commercial documentation is generally more literate.

If I have any criticism of the system it isn't the system's fault! Over the years we have had to spend more and more time on matters of data protection and participant confidentiality, to the detriment of scientific assessment, and there is now a push to concentrate on ethics with the assumption that the science is right. But as the chairman of my first REC said, if the science isn't valid, the project can't be ethical. And all too frequently, it isn't.

[evan_au]

I am somewhat amused by the products that claim "Not tested on animals". Essentially that means "we are testing it on humans".
- There are some techniques that allow assessment of toxicity on bacteria ("animicules", in old-fashioned language)
- Even newer techniques can use human-cell "organoids" to assess impact on different human organs before being tried on the public

[Petrochemicals]

I do not think it necessarily does stop scientific research, it may force scienists to be less wasteful, such as with money. Necessity and law stop scietific research, such as with resources committed to a project, consider corona and the scientific reaction, massively unecesarry lockdowns and arbitrary clandestine laws, the country can only be in lockdown for so long and they achieve a limited effect and law was supposed to ensure freedom.

 Public opinion on the other hand stop scientific implementation.  In genetically modified crops the public are wary, science having such success with other projects like the BSE epidemic, thalidomide and killer bees, imagine what could happen if geniuses such as creators of these start meddling with the genome. Plants are bred to kill insects, these could lead to human poisoning and pollinator insect irradiation.

[Bored chemist]

Plants are bred to kill insects, these could lead to human poisoning and pollinator insect irradiation.

Not really.
Did you use the wrong big word?

[Bored chemist]

, science having such success with other projects like the BSE epidemic

BSE was, if anything, a political epidemic. The politicians ignored the scientists.

I do not think it necessarily does stop scientific research

Then you are plainly mistaken.

law was supposed to ensure freedom.

That's the one thing it can not do.
It removes the freedom to commit murder and it removes the freedom to commit theft, for example.

killer bees

Exactly how did you come to the

 conclusion that science got involved there?

consider corona and the scientific reaction,

OK, a vaccine that works within a year or so.
That's a *^$&ing miracle.
What would you have proposed instead?

[alancalverd]

I am somewhat amused by the products that claim "Not tested on animals". Essentially that means "we are testing it on humans".

I have it in mind to produce a range of veterinary medicines "not tested on animals". Should sell well, even if it kills a few thousand cows.

[alancalverd]

law was supposed to ensure freedom.

Not in a civilised country. Freedom is a "given", and laws restrict your freedom to harm others. This is not Europe.

Her Majesty's Taxpayer will be in debt for the next hundred years or so because Her Majesty's Government did not impose mandatory quarantine early and rigorously enough. 

[alancalverd]

BSE was, if anything, a political epidemic. The politicians ignored the scientists.

My favorite T-shirt slogan: "Every disaster movie begins with someone ignoring a scientist".

[Petrochemicals]

law was supposed to ensure freedom.

Not in a civilised country. Freedom is a "given", and laws restrict your freedom to harm others. This is not Europe.

This is just the sort of "science" that is completely blind to any other effect. Murder would obviously limit the "freedom" of others, especially scientist, the majority of whom would not make it through school.

Freedom to kidnap.?

Her Majesty's Taxpayer will be in debt for the next hundred years or so because Her Majesty's Government did not impose mandatory quarantine early and rigorously enough. 

nope, her majesties government will be far poorer for wasting the life chances of tens of millions of under 45s, in a similar way the Australian and New Zealand governments did.

[Petrochemicals]

BSE was, if anything, a political epidemic. The politicians ignored the scientists.

My favorite T-shirt slogan: "Every disaster movie begins with someone ignoring a scientist".

But Alan, they are films, make believe, fantasy, did these films mave people flying around in their underwear?

I see BC is probably sniping once more. Yep, ignoring a scientist that prescribes thalidomide, that would be a disaster, not having oxycontin that would be a disaster, ddt not being used as insecticide. It seems chemist's are wrong far more often.

[Bored chemist]

I see BC is probably sniping once more.

No you don't.
What you are not seeing is me pointing out that you are talking tosh.
You even advertise that you do not want anyone pointing it out when you are wrong.
That's an odd view for someone on a science site.

It seems chemist's are wrong far more often.

Did you mean grammatically wrong?

No "scientist" prescribed thalidomide, but it was science that spotted the problem, worked out what was happening (the simple answer is that the stuff inhibits the creation of new blood vessels), and worked out that it would be a useful drug in the treatment of cancer (without blood vessels, the cancer can't grow so well).
Obviously, you need to make sure the patient isn't pregnant, but that's pretty common with chemotherapy anyway.

not having oxycontin that would be a disaster,

I'm not sure why he thinks having people hooked on codeine or whatever else would have become the "drug of choice" would be any better.
It's impossible to tell if PC thinks we stopped using DDT.
We didn't stop
https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-017-2050-2
 and for good reasons.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3114806/

If someone would like to risk incurring the wrath of PC by pointing out  these aspects of reality to him, please feel free (but don't tell him it was me).

[alancalverd]

Freedom to kidnap.?

It's one of those freedoms that is denied by law, if you hadn't noticed.

[Bored chemist]

Freedom to kidnap.?

It's one of those freedoms that is denied by law, if you hadn't noticed.

I think PC feels that getting some schoolkids to wear masks is kidnapping.
I also think that's an "odd" point of view.
Some would say that letting them grow up knowing that they brought home the virus that killed granny would be more of a crime.

[alancalverd]

If the Health Secretary can kill 60,000 grannies with the stroke of a pen, it can't be a crime, surely?

[Petrochemicals]

Freedom to kidnap.?

It's one of those freedoms that is denied by law, if you hadn't noticed.

It's a paradox incase that passed you by, the freedom to kidnap curtails your freedom to kidnap, because you are far more likely to not have freedom to due to being kidnapped. The law gives you freedom by limiting incarceration.

You can kidnap and murder anyway, but the chances are your freedom to murder further in future will be curtailed. On the other hand the "law" in such cases is nothing more than retaliation, as is seen in animal behaviour, monkey see, monkey do. If freedom to murder is immunity and invulnerability from retribution, if it is the absolute sway over all things, I think really it would be a good thing if we are erring on the side of captain underpants than sociopathic supervillanry.

One can but wonder what good old BC is bludgenoning about now.

[Bored chemist]

One can but wonder what good old BC is bludgenoning about now.

The grown-ups know.

[Petrochemicals]

Re: How public opinion holds back scientific progress?
« Reply #17 on: Today at 19:00:13 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

was it a snipe about a colorful word being improper?

[Bored chemist]

Re: How public opinion holds back scientific progress?
« Reply #17 on: Today at 19:00:13 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

was it a snipe about a colorful word being improper?

Let's face it; we know he reads them really.
:-)