Are these two themes related? \u00a0\u00a0There are claims that nanotechnology causes various types of diseases, can cause defects in humans and animals, and will cause long term issues in the environment.\u00a0 (See previous blogs for some specific examples.)\u00a0 There are more web sites that have \u201cnews\u201d about nanotechnology or other technologies being harmful.\u00a0 Usually, the recommendations are to stop employing the technologies or to ban the application or usage of the technologies.\u00a0 The analyses in these reports carry terms like \u201cfeel\u201d, \u201cthink\u201d, \u201cknow\u201d, \u201cbelieve\u201d, or similar verbiage without any supporting evidence.<\/p>\n
Since the 17th<\/sup> century, there has been a method that employs \u201cprinciples and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of the hypotheses\u201d [1] with the dissemination of information in sufficient details that other experimenters can replicate the results.<\/p>\n The information that is available on the internet does not come with a pedigree.\u00a0 The information needs to be viewed with a \u201cbuyer beware\u201d sign.\u00a0 This is not to say that the information is good or bad only that one needs to evaluate the source and the credibility of information.\u00a0 The core idea that underpins science is \u201ctrust but verify.\u201d [2] Results must be subject to challenges from experiment.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the peer reviewed publications do not publish many papers that report failures in hypothesis testing.\u00a0 This in turn creates the need to develop \u201cpositive\u201d results for publications, which are necessary for promotion in many organizations.\u00a0 What happens when there are published results that refute previously published papers?<\/p>\n With the widespread distribution of the internet, it is possible to attack the researcher and his\/her credibility, or to hire researchers to create experiments that will produce the desired results.\u00a0 The former may be done through character assassination in order to discredit the results.\u00a0 The latter takes money, but for large companies with even larger money at stake, this is always an option.\u00a0 There are a number of ways to attack this \u201cproblem\u201d of results that one does not want considered.\u00a0 \u00a0Is this approach \u201cbullying\u201d?\u00a0 You decide.<\/p>\n What is the impact on you?\u00a0 Consider the two recent articles, one in USAToday [3] and the other in Forbes [4].\u00a0 There has been a lot of confusion on the effects of vaccinations, with a number of opponents suggesting the some of the constituents are responsible for causing other diseases\/illnesses.\u00a0 There has been a number of very prominent statements made by various groups on these \u201cdangers\u201d of vaccinations.\u00a0 The other view is that the vaccinations prevent the spread of common diseases.\u00a0 The articles report on a different side of the effects.<\/p>\n Which is correct?\u00a0 Is it possible that both sides have valid points?\u00a0 Does it require that individuals review the facts and make individual<\/span><\/b> decisions?\u00a0 It is one thing to make a personal decision and a totally different one to insist that everyone follow the writer\u2019s beliefs.\u00a0 When we try to force people to do what we perceive as correct, is that not bullying?\u00a0 Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the ability to have discussions or debates.\u00a0 That means everyone needs to do more research and studying on pronouncements.\u00a0 Remember the comment from earlier in the blog: \u201cTrust but Verify\u201d.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1] http:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/scientific%20method<\/a><\/p>\n [2] http:\/\/www.economist.com\/news\/leaders\/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong<\/a><\/p>\n