Before of annoying you with my bad english, I think is better if I state the following: I work in the "private sector", where we call "Emerging Technology" the department where you monitor and study what is, let's say, in the first phase of the Gertner's curve.
For people which never read about it, a Gartner's curve is something like that:
I say I work in the private sector because I want people to see my bias: In the past I've worked with Educational&Research , so with academy and foundations, still I was in the private sector, doing what we used to call "Supercomputing". Nevertheless, please meet my bias.
I know the "common user" thinks we are living the era of science. This is because the private sector is flooding the market, the consumer market, with a load of innovations. This means, consumers are thinking that we (=the human kind) are doing better and more science than before.
Sure, there were centuries when it was much hard to do science: think to Holy Inquisition and Galileo, by example. Or, more recent, think to the fact Heisenberg was ostracized because he was a jew, like "Do you really believe the jew's physics?". And the wrong answer could have costed your life.
Nevertheless, there were much better years: today, I'm sorry to say, Science is not in a good shape in general.
And this sounds incredible if you compare with the incredible amount of innovating technologies you are flooded with. But... look at them under the physics point of view: whatever new "technology" you have, is still about electrons, photons and silicon. Almost all of them. Some diagnostic into hospitals is using the proton's spin, nuclear plants are about neutrons. Not even half a dozen of particles.
Now, how many particles do we know? Well... a lot. We know entire families. And we are using just a few.
This is to say, what we call "technology" is not that "innovative" as it seems: is basically more sophisticated and capable. But, if we ask "how much innovation".... well, we about electrons and photons, 99% of times . Sure, they are quite interesting particles. Still, boring flat.
Forget for a while about technology, and stop thinking new technology is saying "science is going better". Consumer technology is industry, not "science". It makes use of science, but... it makes A LITTLE use of some little details: most of times is silicon, electrons, photons.
Now, the issue is "what about science?". Under my point of view, science is into some dark age. For many reasons, mostly related to the freedom of speech, bad funding , and incompetent press.
Let's start with bad funding.
It is not like "there are no money". Henry Markram got €1Bn to create a simulation of brain. Which is a pretty good amount of money. The problem is what they are funding, and why.
Science is based on peer review. Peer review works by repeating experiments or re-processing the same data, and checking if results are matching. Peer review seems something "which happens later", which "someone else will do", nevertheless is the core of science itself.
In the private sector there are no papers: there are patents. There are no peer review: the product must work. In the very science, peer review is the way to check if the experiment was flawed or not. It's crucial.
It requires money. How many peer reviews are being funded today?
The amount of papers selected by peer review today is less than 1% of the total. Why? Well... people wants researchers and scientists to publish, because of influence index. So almost nobody is funding peer review. Which is crucial for science.
Science ended in a situation where 99% of papers are just the opinion of a brunch of scientists , somewhere. I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying, there is a little way to know if they are wrong or not. 99% of times. The picture of a disaster.
This is because the peer review is scarcely funded: the core, most crucial mechanism of science is now broken. Read those number: "less than 1% of papers are selected for peer review". Impressive. A disaster.
This is the effect of incompetent funding.
Let's go with freedom of speech.
Science is based on the chance , for everybody, to find errors in theories, emend papers, writings, experiments. Not only peer reviews: I am talking about debate. Just talking. Is it possible today? Well, depends by the topic.
Imagine I work with computational models. Well, "Big Data" is. Imagine I have a blog. Imagine I have questions about the models made by the IPCC. Imagine, I say imagine, I want to say "Dear IPCC, don't you think some of your assumptions are a bit strong"? I know the IPCC needs this assumptions to make computing easier, still I could say "those assumptions need a little more research". It's criticism, which was always good in science. Now, I am NOT saying their models are bad. I am not saying "I don't believe that". I would be just discussing. Or maybe posting an opinion on my personal blog.
What will happen if one does that? In the best case, nothing. In the worst case, ALL of the Right-wing magazines in the USA will title "independent researcher in Europe says Climate Change is a fake". They would take some single sentences from one's writing, 'til he would be "the guy which debunked the IPCC".
Now, maybe the IPCC could answer my questions back, like "sure! Give us the budget, and we will simulate it better!". Or maybe they would not be able to, because of a mass of rednecks with pitchforks and shotguns. Anyhow, if I even had doubt about this simulation, I do prefer stay silent than write it on my blog. I don't think the resulting debate (if any) would be something useful.
I mean, if you find a mistake into the IPCC model, and you fix it, what you get on the press could be:
- Mistake fixed on IPCC model. Now we have a better model for the Global Warming.
- Guy in Europe debunks the Global Warming Hoax
And ... guess who will win. I think today NOBODY would dare to fix an error in the IPCC simulation. Science works by improvements and peer reviews, but when it comes to the Climate Change or Global Warming, "peer review" is not being "peer review": it enters some hell of a debate, where you "debunked the Global Warming Hoax" , just because you improved the model.
Another piece broken: on hot topics, politicians made it hard to exchange ideas in public. Maybe lot of scientists are able to provide suggestions and fixes for the IPCC model on Climate Change. They will not, because once one says "this could be improved", politicians will say "this guy debunked the Global Warming".
And here we are with incompetent press
When it comes to make politics out of science, press is the convicted number 1 for me. And when it comes to make people to shit on scientists, press is the convicted #1 too.
Let's do an example.
Have you read about the Artificial Intelligence being one of the bigger threats for the humankind? Of course. Have you read about how machines could decide to exterminate us, boring humans? Of course. Stephen Hawkins said that, right?
Well, no. He never said that. Actually he did quite a long reasoning about military utilization of the AI , but this was "cherry picked" by the press, making it true that we (yes, I work with that) are building Skynet. Which, of course, will decide to exterminate the whole humankind , just a few nanoseconds after it "get self-conscious". Whatever it means.
Now, is there ANY science behind it? Do you know of any "self-conscious" AI? Is there any case study of a single "self-conscious whatsoever" we 've built? No. Is there a single AI which killed a person? A single , documented case of an AI which "decided" to kill one person, aware of what killing means? No.
If we were supposed to be afraid of some intelligence which decides to kill, I would say the human intelligence has a well documented record of doing that , quite efficiently and brutally: we don't have any science, neither studies, of Artificial intelligence killing people knowing what "killing" means.
So where this buzz comes from? From Hollywood. We have plenty of movies with machines being "self conscious" and aiming to destroy the whole humankind.
Who made the Hollywood to be "science"?
Do we have a single episode of DNA editing , creating a monster which kills people, until some hero with muscles kills it in some blasting way? Do we have a single example of a single experiment on DNA which escapes the control, and destroys cities? No. Do we have a single example of a single person made sick by a GMO? No. Do we have any scientific literature of monsters created by accident which are kidnapping gorgeous blondes in stockings? No.
Nevertheless, when we talk about genomics, we always read (on the press) about concerns: creating new species will make all of us in danger because , you know, scientists are always very good in losing the control of their experiments. It's obvious , if you do the LHC, you will create an interdimensional hole which will disintegrate the planet. Because scientists are always losing the control of what they do.
Do we have any single known case of an accelerator creating some "interdimensional" whatever with the power to destroy a whole universe? Uhm.... being honest, we never went even close to it.
To be clear, the amount of experiments which were out of control in a way they exit the lab and killed people (and needed the army to stop that) is ... zero. Seems when people is losing control of something, usually is quite incompetent, which is not the same as being a scientist. Looks like the opposite.
Nevertheless, the press talks about machines taking the power and killing us. They talk about genetic mutations running out of labs and kidnapping blondes under the shower. They talk about the LHC creating black holes which could destroy the universe.
We know from the press that, if we edit the human DNA at will, "everybody will be tall, blonde and blue-eyed". I don't know how the press knows almost every non-white father wants to look like a cuckold having a blonde , white baby: I'm still collecting data. I personally doubt asians and african people are that anxious to have tall, blonde , blue-eyed babies. (Most likely people will just have healthier babies.)
But this is what the press writes. Everyday.
This creates hostility and distrust in science. Which reflects in politics: no politicians wants to admit they funded one experiment to create a new mutant bean which will escape the lab and kidnap your sister. No government wants to admit they funded an accelerator which "plays to be God" and could disintegrate the universe.
In general, I would say science is in a Middle Age, again. They suffer of the same problems they had. The lack of investments on peer review is making them to work by Authority: "this well known scientists said that". The lack of investments on peer review makes them keeping "most likely" theories alive. Aristotelianism.
A bad press is keeping funding out of the most interesting fields: Intelligence, DNA, High energy physics, just because Hollywood has made lot of movies about this and that, and the press is selling them as true.
Last but least, politicians entered the arena, making a hell to debate: whatever a scientist says about its field, is now being a debate , and not the kind of debate which makes sense.
Consumers are living under the impression that science is now better than anytime before, but this is not true. Industry is raging, the stack of application is growing, which doesn't means science is in a good shape.
Science is lacking freedom, competent funding and a positive public mood. Which is more Middle Age than modern age.
So what is the solution to this problem? Is it scientist demanding better publicity from the press, more funding from the government, and more education in school based on peer review? I think the private sector has already picked up the slack by going ahead and moving forward in front of the government. That the government with its peer reviewed, previous gold standard of process shot itself in the foot by making the process so elite that only a few scientist are even known today and seem to believe they are the leaders of the industry when in reality the younger corporate generation is miles ahead of them because they had no where else to go but corporation sell out. At the same time the government has massive scandals of data collection and monitoring citizens and political turmoil so it doesn't fair well for the few scientist who made it in the elite 1%. Show me what your elite one percent can do and I'll show you how powerful the other 99% can become. I guess if scientist want to start peer reviewing patented proven technologies then they can buy seems like a waste of resources if the product is out and functioning according to all plans and models and it able to function in a reproducible way with generic or odd brands. That's the difference; peer review happens later in the private sector as in a peer review is the buyout of your patented technology and get downgraded until the product literally barely functions. It works backwards in a way. I am not saying one is better than the other, just that one is running a lot more efficiently than the other. It saddens me too, because I like peer review and meaningful debates. A debate should have no losers only both sides gaining from the other.
I suggest you to read the article again. The private sector is doing technology, not science. Even if the experiment could be seen as the first application of a theory, applications are not "research".
By the way, there is no such a thing as "the elite" : what you have is people which is able to achieve, and underachievers. Then you can ask the government to take money from overachievers and give them to underachievers, still, underachievers are underachievers (not "the people") , and overachievers are overachievers, not "the elite".
I think overachiever and elite could possible be used interchangeable. They both are presenting s position of power or esteem. I in no means wanted to offend you. I missed in of my point and that was this: government backed scientific research has the general population at heart as in the community as a herd benefits from the rigorous criteria. The private sector is dabbling in scientific research by generating new products with technology the thing that alarms me about this is the private sector is based on monetary value not quality of life value. Do you remember when the cures for a bunch of diseases came up in late august/early September 2015? Lots and lots of research papers flooded the scientific journals with massive information and advances in disease networks but they all traced back to one patients DNA genome and none of them were set up to sustain long term patient outcomes. The private sector jumped the gun on the data that was collected and the scientific community of course and rightfully so said hey, your data is massively skewed, isn't based on the general population as a whole, lack patient results, and isn't acceptable. I remember this happening. I have always read lots of research papers through peer reviewed sites. Like its what I do for fun in my downtime because they are fifteen to twenty minutes long, you read and learn something new and it's legitimate. I was massively alarmed by the research articles and the data that they had in such a way that I think it kinda partially lead to my severe psychotic break in the fall of 2015. I knew the world was about to change massively becaus the private sector had so much information and then tried to use that information to take over the scientific community. I am not dissing science at all. Or the private sector. Just like I know it happened, I remember it happening, then I got really really ill and lost all my creditentals, all my believability, and now I just sound like what I am... a crazy schizophrenic. But before psychosis before the schizophrenia I obtain degrees in business, pre-law, marketing, international business, nursing, psychology, and was working towards going back for a doctorate in nursing. I read a lot of peer reviewed articles for a lot of years and noticed the change in the quality of the articles and then fell down the rabbit hole of how did that happen. Like how did the peer review system fail so quickly. But it's because no one is reading those articles or worried about the structure or content, people were just out to get published. It was a massive failure on all parts. I hope that it can be fixed and that our national media follows suit to ensure the message/content they are reporting is accurate, true, and sustains over time. No one likes being the first to the scene of the crash. So all sectors are pointing the fingers at each other. In a way I don't feel anyone is truly at fault unless they were just out for profits and nothing else. Would like to believe most parties have the populations best interest at heart but know that is not the case. At least the scientific community is working towards bettering the overall situation for most of the population and not just worried about if they are generating a revenue or income. It takes money to improve quality of life. I don't understand why the system is set up to make money off of improving quality of life but seems like as a whole we could all agree that life isn't something that should have a monetary value placed to it. Money doesn't buy life, except in the capitalist world because it buys medicine, surgeries, and healthcare. Without money for health care your quality of life significantly decreases and you lifespan declines rapidly. Money doesn't buy happiness but it can buy you life in our system. Seems people got the messages mixed up. Again I never wanted to offend anyone or upset you. Just generally want to talk this out with you. And get your viewpoint/find common ground so we can work towards creating solutions for the problems. We can point out the flaws in the system all day or we can work towards trying to fix those flaws. I would rather spend my time working towards fixes and recovery and a better tomorrow than arguing on differences of opinion. I found you very intelligent, very driven, very enthusiastic about the article you posted so I thought maybe you were intelligent to the point of where you could come up with ways or ideas that might better the situation. We know there's a problem... I am looking at you for a hypothesis on how to fix said problem. And willing to help you achieve that hypothesis. :)
Well, to answer such a huge post is hard. On my perspective, I don't think the "private sector" wants to take over the academic research. On the other side, differently from academics, we are somehow accountable. In your case, if some big pharma releases some drug which kills people, they will get sued and pay sound money. If we release some IoT which kills people, we get sued: even a stupid dishwasher must be over-tested to avoid problems. If it starts to flood apartments, it is an issue: http://www.reuters.com/article/bosch-siemens-recall-idUSL6N0H117K20130905
You ask me for a solution... well, as De Gaulle said, to get rid of idiots is quite a huge political achievement. And I am not De Gaulle. :) :)
Actually I think the issue is that there is no accountability. Means that, if you deliver the usual Monday paper saying you can cure cancer because of this new protein you discover, and is not true, then people should be able to sue you. If you say that AI will become self-conscious and kill the humankind, you should be accountable and pay because you are spreading panic among customers, which will not buy our products.
The same like the paper you are talking about: you release a paper saying this and that. Many PAID people in the private sector goes to read it, which is a cost for the company. In such a case, this university should have paid for the waste of time.
I think the best solution for bad behavior is accountability: if you find a new protein, then you've found a new protein. Inventing this could cure the breast cancer just to end on any women magazine is not acceptable.
My solution , if asked, is: accountability. People publishing papers should be, at least in theory, accountable for bad practice , misleading titles and others. This could force universities and foundations to introduce quality standards.
In my experience in the private sector, people will implement quality standards only when is made accountable. This is valid also for universities.
Don't worry about my way to answer: first I'm Italian and I cannot use my friendly gesture :) :) , second, I'm not native english speaker...
Thank you for the great response. And you are right accountability does solve the issue. I was surprised Donald trump didn't try to sue the media for slander during his campaign, seemed like a move he would make;) that said accountability for the words we say must be held to some standard. I know I am held accountable for my words in and out of psychosis, as I suffer from the illness schizophrenia. I will say really bizarre things but I either apologize when I realize my mistake later or I stand behind it as at the time all the evidence I had suggested I was correct in my words. People don't take apologies very well after you tell them the horrible things you see in psychosis. The media has not even issued an apology or admitted wrong doing. The stand behind well my job is to report what I see and report it before my competition does. I saw an ad the other day of the same company wear the day before they praised bitcoin and the next day they were saying bitcoin would be the demise of the financial sector. It was extreme polar opposite portrayals of the same company by the same reporting agency on back to back segments. I don't understand the medias goal in why they are manipulating their viewers into such divided groups. To me it has to be more than just profits. they should be held accountable when they cause mass histeria, mass divisions, major losses, and political turmoil. I can see accountability being an issue system wide that no one wants to be the leader or the decision-maker because then they are also responsible and by responsible I mean liable criminal and monetary for the outcome of it might be projected to be unfavorable. Everyone wants clear defined answers of what will happen if they do this or that decision. In life there are no definite answers, rather every choice you make could be your best or worst like a random lottery. You can act with all the knowledge in the world to head one way but the slightest thing can in turn offset your data by such a degree you end up far away from your original projection. For every assurance there must be an error in return when you place it in terms of energy. For ever action there is an equal reaction. I feel as though we have found ourselves in the eye of the storm so to speak. I could read your words perfectly btw, you write very well in English.
Hi Kristy, the media goal was dramatically changed after the Internet. While with normal press you needed to make it interesting and accurate, in the internet the clickstream is more important. Clickstream means the number of impressions per page is important. So it doesn't matters if you write something true or not, the problem is to have more impressions on that page. The extreme of this is the clickbait web, where most of news have no facts in behind of it. So when you see "bitcoin is the solution of everything" and "bitcoin is the apocalypse", the purpose is the same: to get the interest of people, and make them click on the link.
Science is also being perverted to this: you have the "new pill to lose weight", as well as "the new therapy for psoriasis", "enlarge your penis", "hot to grow back your hairs", and more. Out of commercials, when you discover a new protein, is better if you say "this could prevent the breast cancer", because you know most of woman will read the articles after the headline.
So the agenda has dramatically changed for the media, because the way to monetize news has changed. You will see more and more of this, and now I have to say, it will hit also facts themselves. I think I will write an article on that.