Should scientist B concerned about the beliefs of the public? Or should they do their research without worryin
485303
science is the pursuit of knowledge of the physical.  belief systems deal with the supernatural.  i think that priority should be given to what will better society as a whole and science shouldn't worry about what people think.
771546
In defence of the Arts, I'll pretend you asked, "Is academia about research or protecting the reputation of the Professors?"\n\nDepends on the institute. If it's of a professional standard and publishing regularly, then regardless of what the professors would have their students and subordinates do, external critics from other institutes will waste no mercy on poor quality research.
541297
Good question. Rationally, you would expect science to at least consider all possibilities and seek to encompass them in a complete model.\n\nWhile a great many scientists have a personal belief in God, as an organized system, "science" itself is more akin to a religion, deliberately seeking to pit itself as a force against monotheism or any acknowledgment of a higher power.\n\nThe debate on Godel's theories, the uncertainty principle, the anomalies within Quantum and the rejection of all forms of paradox point to science (as a system) actively ignoring any possible signs of God, even at the expense of incomplete and broken theories.\n\nThis of course is not rational and against the very principles of science.  But it is where we find ourselves. Privately, scientists are happy to confess their belief and views on God, but collectively you'd have a better chance in getting them to admit in the existence of Santa Claus.\n\nUntil science (as a religion) accepts rational debate, there can be no theory that will suffice.
31206
Yes...and they don't bother doing research and instead ask someone a question here.  If they are putting their answer in a paper, I think they should reference the person giving it on answers.  Then again, I think they should do their own research to insure that the answer here is the truth and not just someone's opinion.
695559
No.  There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, if not millions, and very few ever achieve recognition for their work on the public scale.  We do it because we're interested in our work and our results, and because we enjoy it.
226262
What research have you done to back your "hypothesis". If your observations are based on your environment, maybe you should change it. It seems as though you might be talking from the perspective of one who watches to much television and has a limited scope of the world at large.
836742
In a heartbeat.  I think it is so wrong of someone who may be religious or has other reasons for not wanting scientists to do the research necessarry for this process to be perfected and does have all of their limbs to criticize or even fight and lobby against it.  There are millions of people in this world who have lost limbs and many more millions who have lost fingers or toes and for anyoneother than themselves to deny them any form of treatment is ridiculous.
991356
The Christian community does not worry about stem cell research, we worry about babies being murdered to save adults.  Since it is hard to control what goes on in private labs once this activity is started, it is best to stay clear of launching into this practice.
1065712
People who believe in something think there is no wrong.
269905
Of course not! Science is constantly weighing morality against the need for knowledge. Einstein once said of the development of nuclear weapons... "I do not know what weapons will be used in World War III, but I do know what weapons will be used in World War IV... STICKS and STONES!"\n\nMankind has made tremendous gains through science, But this blessing comes with a tremendous burden of responsibility.
1045520
A good researcher is never satisfied by one or two sources.They always dig a little deeper to find the answers.They also can take the research and convey it in terms that a common person can understand.If you can no longer ask the question"what if"then you have the answer and no longer need to do research.
542482
No. I think for myself. Science has a large number of self-correcting proceedures, so I think it will eventually get the correct answers once enough data is in. But science itself does not deal with morality, just existence. \nFor morality, I look at what hurts people and society and what helps people and society. I look for promotion of learning, art, literature, and love between people. I look to promote the type of world that I would like my daughter to live in: one that is open to new ideas, that doesn't ostrasize people for who they love, and that protects those that are in need of protection. This often means I don't 'go with the flow'.
1140358
IMHO, governments should keep away from all matters religious in the same way that religious figures and organizations should keep their hands off politics.\nThis kind of interference with the public's right to learn someone's point of view is an ugly violation of freedom of speech.
627508
IT DEPENDS on what you choose to do with the curiosity and the fury.\n\n  POSITIVE actions (that do not hurt others) based upon intense anger can, depending upon the circumstance, improve our world BUT NEGATIVE actions from intense anger have already killed millions.  If the fury is over a trivial matter, it is best to not act upon it, but if it leads you to create an effective solution for poverty, it would be wrong to NOT act upon it.\n\nCuriosity can take us to dangerous places (dangerous for others as well as ourselves).    However, curiosity drives most research...if curiosity drives you do create a new cure for cancer, it would be worth acting upon, but if it causes you to overstep someone else's personal boundaries, it should not be acted upon.
73846
Science is a human activity, and therefore it suffers from the same failings as many other human activities. One of these failings is a tendency to do unethical things from time to time by various participants, like steal each other's work or be less than honest about the outcome of various experiments. \n\nFor example, if one looks into the story of evolution, one finds that Darwin does not lay sole claim to the theory of natural selection. Wallace, Wells, Mathew, Buffon, Owen, and even Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) and many others independently came up with the idea, or are contenders for the title of "father of evolution". The actual priority claims are somewhat murky, and there have been charges of ethical lapses of various kinds. \n\nSimilarly, it appears that Newton might have fudged some of his celestial mechanics  and optics data and his theory of sound to get agreement between theory and experiment. Even the monk Gregor Mendel's data look a little too good to be true, apparently.  \n\nIn these cases, if science is to remain vital, I believe that ethical restraint must be practiced. Otherwise the entire enterprise might descend into a useless morass. \n\nHowever, I do not believe these are the events you are referring to; I believe you are referring to blocking certain types of inquiry or investigation because it offends some sense of propriety of some group or society. I will argue that in all human activities, like warfare, and politics, and driving, there are probably some rules for behavior that can and should be adopted. Otherwise, one would end up still condoning practices like torture and the "science" of Dr. Mengele. As uncomfortable as I am with imposing artificial boundaries on scientific inquiry, the potential coarsening of society that might result from unbridled investigations should give us all pause.
53154
Stuborness, I suppose.  We can present them with the latest theories and information and if it doesn't fit in with their world view, they'll just dispute it or fail to believe it.
610053
If I trust that person, no I wouldn't.  If not, I will check it out myself first before I make up my mind, I wouldn't make my decision based on other people opinion, they could be wrong, or they view things according to them.