s/ I live in fear of your undoubted wisdom re the scientific method @The_Doc_Man: trembling in awe of your authority /s 
... I was not leaving out the link you described. it was in relation to Pat's statements which were not about what you are discussing. The research conducted by scientists and the application of the scientific method is one part, the use/misuse of that information (by others/ reporters/ authorities / or by supervisors) is another as they pursue fame, or monetary or political reward. We all have biases (and politics seems a particularly strong influence) that can affect how we interpret things, but the data remains, and so we ignore it at our peril or we find new (better) ways of understanding it (through application of the methods of science).
Scientists are not immune from bias. However the application of the scientific method is probably the best tool, with its exposure of methods, data, and peer review that we have available to us to advance knowledge of the physical world. In the medical sphere (not chemistry) where often the investigations have consequences for humans, the process has a particular construct involving generally use of animals/analogues and progressing ultimately to clinical trials using a double blind protocol.
Collaboration or as Pat would have it, collusion, has to occur because the knowledgebase is so large, the areas of expertise often narrow, that needs to be drawn together to properly develop and execute a scientific investigation. Or was she only talking about the post-science part of the process - but tainting everyone involved in the process, from the scientists who we able to develop mRNA vaccines to the politicians promoting their use? Seems to me she was attacking the scientists only. So are you comfortable as a scientist with this:
And then do you feel that under such a blanket statement that your scientific work carries no weight? OK we are not talking about your work. Perhaps we are only talking about those who develop vaccines. Well vaccine hesitancy arises as an outcome. We all have to make our own decisions when it comes to vaccinations. Drug risk and effectiveness are not constant or always apparent. Still I wonder how we may react with the next pandemic - such as when Bird Flu becomes human-to-human transmissible. How hesitant will we be.
... I was not leaving out the link you described. it was in relation to Pat's statements which were not about what you are discussing. The research conducted by scientists and the application of the scientific method is one part, the use/misuse of that information (by others/ reporters/ authorities / or by supervisors) is another as they pursue fame, or monetary or political reward. We all have biases (and politics seems a particularly strong influence) that can affect how we interpret things, but the data remains, and so we ignore it at our peril or we find new (better) ways of understanding it (through application of the methods of science).Scientists are not immune from bias. However the application of the scientific method is probably the best tool, with its exposure of methods, data, and peer review that we have available to us to advance knowledge of the physical world. In the medical sphere (not chemistry) where often the investigations have consequences for humans, the process has a particular construct involving generally use of animals/analogues and progressing ultimately to clinical trials using a double blind protocol.
Collaboration or as Pat would have it, collusion, has to occur because the knowledgebase is so large, the areas of expertise often narrow, that needs to be drawn together to properly develop and execute a scientific investigation. Or was she only talking about the post-science part of the process - but tainting everyone involved in the process, from the scientists who we able to develop mRNA vaccines to the politicians promoting their use? Seems to me she was attacking the scientists only. So are you comfortable as a scientist with this:
Do you think that they (scientists) said you could not contract COVID if you took the COVID vaccine? Do you think those that developed the vaccine and wrote the scientific papers expressed their conclusions in such a manner? But then there were other events going on, and pressures, political and potential monetary rewards, that gloss over/misrepresent/ misinterpret. Did it invalidate the original work? The scramble to address an immediate threat created an overwhelming political motivations to do something - almost anything. We rely upon experts, and in some cases non-experts, to jump from what was known about the disease to what were thought to be reasonable steps to prevent and treat, where you do not have the time to conduct controlled tests. Hindsight is wonderful. Many health workers and other died.
And then do you feel that under such a blanket statement that your scientific work carries no weight? OK we are not talking about your work. Perhaps we are only talking about those who develop vaccines. Well vaccine hesitancy arises as an outcome. We all have to make our own decisions when it comes to vaccinations. Drug risk and effectiveness are not constant or always apparent. Still I wonder how we may react with the next pandemic - such as when Bird Flu becomes human-to-human transmissible. How hesitant will we be.
They're the only ones who think science is ever "settled". We know what we know at this time. Their problem was they were ignoring the old version of the science with no new facts.
