You are using a computer or even a mobile device to write this comment. These are complex instruments that make use of various interconnected microelectronic elements (e.g. Transistors) and can execute complicated maths based procedures (think of Bitcoin mining). They are the results of decades and decades of intellectual work and experimental research by scientists in the fields of physics, engineering and cybernetics. Lastly, communication technology added the internet on top of the computer (developed by the US Department of Defense). Nowadays, companies like Microsoft or Apple earn tens of billions of USD selling this technology to the people globally.
According to your logics, the models that the IT products are based on were manipulated and tampered with (because scientists developed them and the IT industry earns lots of money!). So what will happen then as a consequence of the manipulation? Are we all going to get cancer from the electromagnetic radiation that these devices emit? The pharma companies will come into play and sell their useless anti-cancer drugs to earn billions of dollars and profit from all the pain that the IT industry has caused. Because, guess what? The IT and pharma companies have planed this all along! For the purpose of killing off humanity, even the evil scientists and developers themselves included.
Point is, you see that your smartphone or computer work because they do what you want them to do (most of the times, at least). You experience it with your own senses and can yourself easily verify the claims made by IT tech developers.
Now that is not possible when it comes to biomedical research because we humans cannot even visually distinguish a single cell from another, not to speak of macromolecules like antibodies or DNA molecules, due to limitations of the resolution of our eyesight.
It is understandable that many people will be very suspiscious of research in the field of cell biology since there is almost no way that a layman can verify the results himself due to the complex equipment and methods, time and knowledge needed to do this.
This is where science communication comes into play and judging from the article that we are commenting on and at least half of the comments, science communication has failed. This makes me sad and a little bit angry.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: