Unpacking one of the science A Level P1 General Paper questions from 2022!
A. ANALYSIS OF QUESTION
Question: "The results of scientific research should be made available to everyone." How far do you agree?
Scientific research: According to the National Institute of Health, scientific research refers to “research performed by applying systematic and constructed scientific methods to obtain, analyse, and interpret data.”
While the scientific method is certainly useful in understanding the world around us, it is crucial to examine both sides of the coin. What advantages does science offer? Conversely, what are the challenges?
It is also necessary to think about how scientific research is carried out. This is often the role of universities, scientific organisations and private companies.
Results: Obtaining scientific results can lead to the dissemination of scientific knowledge, e.g. statistics and conclusions. You can consider the impacts or consequences of possessing this knowledge, e.g. could it change society for the better?
Made available: Which mediums are commonly used to publicise scientific data? How might the public react to different types of data? What are the disadvantages of utilising these mediums?
Should: Connotes obligation and duty. What are the obligations and responsibilities involved here? Is it imperative to increase the accessibility of scientific results? Are researchers and organisations responsible for publicising the results?
Everyone: Consider the different groups of people in society. What are their beliefs and attitudes towards the scientific approach? Be sure to characterise your populations and demographics clearly! The layman, the demagogue, the politican, etc.
How far do you agree: Remember to answer the question by signposting the extent of your agreement.
B. POSSIBLE IDEAS
Generally, you should approach GP questions with some structure. In this question, we considered the extent of our agreement, while acknowledging both sides of the perspective offered in the question. Here are some of the non-exhaustive points that you can consider:
Yes, I agree that scientific results should be made available to everyone because...
The democratisation of scientific knowledge is beneficial to the public in understanding the world and making well-informed choices.
Consider the benefits on personal, societal and global levels. E.g. climate change and COVID-19
Scientific transparency holds research organisations to the highest standards.
Promoting the authenticity and credibility of data to improve the scientific method. E.g. the vaccine-autism myth, Anil Potti's scientific misconduct
It promotes collaboration in scientific communities, and increases an objective and more accurate understanding of our world.
Publishing research papers encourages interaction between researchers working on similar projects, while drawing attention to high potential investigations. E.g. the Reproducibility Project
No, I disagree that scientific results should be made available to everyone because...
(Counterargument) It does not fulfil the intended purpose of propagating the truth / is counterproductive when considering cases of fraudulent science.
Examine the impact of the media on public perception. E.g. misinformation, sensationalism, political agenda
Using scientific results to persuade certain groups of people is a futile endeavour.
Consider those who hold deeply ingrained beliefs or traditions outside of the scientific realm.
The public may misinterpret scientific results, or are unable to accurately analyse scientific data.
The lack of a scientific background, coupled with confusing terminologies, possibly deters the average reader from understanding scientific findings and seeking less credible sources.
C. THESIS
How to write a thesis statement? Your thesis statement should outline the extent to which you agree with the statement, and your reasons for this extent!
It could also contain the contexts and conditions in which the statement offered by the question can be true or not so true.
D. SAMPLE ESSAY FROM A FORMER STUDENT, EDITED BY US!
From the unfathomable vastness of the universe to the minuscule movements of an atom, scientific research has allowed us to reach unprecedented levels of discovery, while improving human lives. Clearly, science has become a fundamental and inalienable tool for mankind. Knowing this, proponents of scientific transparency posit that research should be made widely accessible to hold organisations and researchers to the highest standards, while allowing the average person to further understand the world. On the other hand, critics question the effectiveness and highlight the consequences of misinformation and sensationalism. In my opinion, solutions to these points of contention are reconcilable, and it is important that we democratise scientific knowledge in the interest of collective progress. As such, I largely agree that results of scientific research should be made available to everyone, insofar as scientific research is produced and consumed ethically and responsibly.
Supporters of increasing the accessibility of scientific research opine that it not only encourages rational, strategic thinking in the face of global issues, but also allows the common man to navigate challenging problems with clarity. For instance, widespread awareness of the pandemic allowed collaborative action to be taken against the pervasiveness of COVID-19. Shi Zhengli, who spent years at the Wuhan Institute of Virology researching coronaviruses that live in bats, allowed the world to understand the dangers that pervade them and quickly develop solutions. Without scientific explanations prompting COVID vaccines and quarantines, would societies be equipped with the means to address these transmittable diseases? Furthermore, access to scientific data encourages us to reckon with objective facts and issues that trouble the human race. It is often through studying legitimate scientific data with scientific method and rigour that misconceptions about our world and different phenomena are dispelled. This persuasive power of science is especially evident in the discourse surrounding climate change. After inspecting scientific data from the Berkeley Earth Project, former climate change deniers such as physicist Richard Muller have reversed their anti-scientific positions, fully convinced that human activities were indeed causing the greatest changes in the planet, aligned with scientific consensus.
[The findings from Berkeley Earth Project] essentially confirmed the results [Muller] had set out to investigate, and he came away firmly convinced that human activities were warming the planet. “Call me a converted skeptic,” he wrote in an Op-Ed for the Times in 2012. ( from the New York Times)
It is thus with the availability of accurate scientific data that humans can gain a clearer understanding of the world, and to take the right actions or perspectival shifts in order to begin solving pertinent issues that trouble humans and their societies effectively.
Scientific transparency also allows the public to hold organisations and researchers to the highest standards, promoting data authenticity and credibility. In 2015, as part of the Reproducibility Project, hundreds of psychologists ventured to replicate scientific papers in different research journals, in efforts to see if they would arrive at similar results independently. Shockingly, only 39 percent of replication attempts were successful, raising suspicions that these research findings are not always conclusive. As a result, the scientific community pressed for more funding towards replication studies, with journals like Nature strengthening editorial measures to increase the credibility of the results produced and published. Similarly, public attention and scrutiny introduces a layer of pressure to ensure proper scientific conduct, deterring researchers from unethical practices. Anil Potti is a testament to this. The former researcher in Duke University falsified cancer research data and previously received a large sum of funding by the American Cancer Society, misleading the public in the advancement of medical science. Thankfully, discerning individuals scrutinised the research data and exposed the scientific fraud. With the publication of such scientific results, the world can operate with greater transparency, critically evaluate the conclusions we draw from them, thus raising the accuracy and reliability of research data and our understanding of the world.
However, it is also necessary to acknowledge the drawbacks of publicising scientific results, as it is often vulnerable to misinformation and media sensationalism, rendering us incapable of distinguishing facts from exaggerated truths and conspiracies. As every publication requires a medium, we are have been largely reliant on the media to disseminate information for our consumption. According to research published by Journalism Quarterly, news personnel “rely on excitement and color in many of their news stories in order to capture reader interest.” Since scientific research has little inherent reader appeal, this introduces the risk of exaggerating and dramatising results. The phenomenon is exacerbated by the internet, as misinformation becomes more pervasive within online echo chambers and plays into our confirmation bias. To illustrate, the vaccine-autism myth, which started 20 years ago, still persists today despite being fraudulent as a result of fake science posts on Facebook and unfounded claims by influential figures. The prominent influence of the media is clearly shown here (as it is much easier to simply believe others instead of critically analyse scientific data).
While studying relationships among editors, science writers, scientists and mass media audiences, Tannenbaum found that media personnel, rather than serving as mediators between scientists and the public, “introduced an apparently dissonant element, featuring the more bizarre, sordid and frivolous aspects—” Tichenor et al. found that this “over-emphasis upon the unique” was what scientists perceived as the greatest problem with science reporting. (quoted from Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly)
Scientific findings can also be easily manipulated by individuals, as a deceptive facade to mask corrupt political goals. Furthermore, with the advent of the internet, publicising scientific findings may not be sufficient in countering the unbridled spread of misinformation. For example, politicians may utilise fallacious arguments (e.g. cherry-picking data) to further their agendas, from maintaining public popularity to promoting bizarre beliefs. Donald Trump has infamously cited misleading scientific results, claiming that certain states were solely responsible for high national death rates, while asserting his anti-COVID beliefs by attributing high infection rates to testing. Supporters often reject rationality in favour of personal ideologies — in fact, the rise of anti-vaccine conspiracies is partly attributed to political and religious beliefs, in spite of the evidential basis provided by scientific arguments. AIDS denialism in South Africa was also prominent during Thabo Mbeki's presidency, which markedly hindered the public perception on healthcare policies. Up to this day, social media still perpetuates disconcerting anti-PrEP advertisements, effectively discouraging the uninformed from seeking treatment.
Despite all of these shortcomings, scientific research should still be democratised given the necessity of doing so, and in considering that governmental legislation can fight the misinformation from distorted representations of scientific data. Consider Singapore's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), commonly known as the Fake News Law, where misrepresentations of facts can warrant a legal order for publishers to issue a statement of correction, or to remove the post entirely. Although such governmental and policies are often perceived as coercive weapons that can suppress any free speech, as long as there is judicial oversight and an avenue for legal recourse, the benefits of such legislative policies can outweigh the costs and risks. In the case of POFMA, Singaporean law requires the authorities to provide reasons for issuing directives, and orders or decisions issued can be subject to judicial review to ensure constitutional scrutiny and fairness. As such, legislative means can be used for governments or institutions of authority to safeguard truth and act as both avenues of deterrence and corrections for misrepresenting scientific facts and findings.
In conclusion, publicising the results of scientific research is not a one size fits all solution in tackling global problems and combating ignorance. While democratising scientific results is essential in making rational decisions, the public is also responsible to evaluating the published data with care. It is together with responsible the responsible production of accurate scientific data, can we then truly achieve scientific and social progress together.
Comments