NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

"The ONLY REAL motivator when it comes to public distrust of the scientific community is how precisely science has been relegated to just another commercial enterprise. That wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. TOTAL BIAS."
I'm not sure it's the only motivator but I was thinking about what is portrayed as science to the general public is much more often applied science/ development of technology instead of basic research and what we see of that really is corporate/commercial enterprise

Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy

The discussion also generally reminded me of what seems to be a tremendous dis-satisfaction with mainstream medical treatment and growing interest in alternative medical treatments - a very complicated thing but one aspect of which I think may be a greater feeling of control and understanding by the user of alternative treatments - you can purchase them freely and apply them at home without dealing with the time/cost and complexity of accessing the mainstream medical system. (I am not saying there is no scientific support for alternative medicine) And there is also a tie in here with I believe Chris' idea that an understanding of science isn't available even to working researchers in an adjacent field, much less the layperson.

As a personal example - I was very sick a few years back and was eventually referred to a psychiatrist b/c of what appeared to be severe depression. I was referred to a specialist for ECT (electro-convulsive therapy) - I did my research before going in and then asked the doctor for an explanation of how ECT worked (I'd found at least a dozen "possible theories" online but no consensus of why or even clear indications of for whom ECT would work - it seemed to be a spin of the roulette wheel) - the doctor, whose specialty practice consisted almost entirely of giving ECT treatment as the preferred treatment for depression (even for non-treatment resistant depression) gave me the "rebooting your computer analogy" as the best he could offer. I was shown a video on the advances in ECT technology (a muscle block is applied so there are no convulsions) and the side-effects (memory loss, short and possibly long term) and the need for continuing treatments (in blocks of six over two weeks and then less frequently for an indefinite period of time) but I went away with little confidence in the technology and less in the doctor; rejecting the ECT treatments offered. Later, my GP tested me for Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick Fever and treated me with doxycycline (approved in 1967) and I began to feel better within three days and made a full recovery . . . but as a result of basic diagnostic work - the process of specialization and referral failed me and it was only my own sense that what the experts were telling me might not be true.

<blockquote data-quote="smcder" data-source="post: 173650">&quot;The ONLY REAL motivator when it comes to public distrust of the scientific community is how precisely science has been relegated to just another commercial enterprise. That wasn&#039;t even mentioned in the conversation. TOTAL BIAS.&quot;I&#039;m not sure it&#039;s the only motivator but I was thinking about what is portrayed as science to the general public is much more often applied science/ development of technology instead of basic research and what we see of that really is corporate/commercial enterprise <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm?CFID=12450800&amp;CFTOKEN=24206977&amp;jsessionid=f0306d79f76f9fbb56763561526b29757256" target="_blank">Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy</a>The discussion also generally reminded me of what seems to be a tremendous dis-satisfaction with mainstream medical treatment and growing interest in alternative medical treatments - a very complicated thing but one aspect of which I think may be a greater feeling of control and understanding by the user of alternative treatments - you can purchase them freely and apply them at home without dealing with the time/cost and complexity of accessing the mainstream medical system. (I am not saying there is no scientific support for alternative medicine) And there is also a tie in here with I believe Chris&#039; idea that an understanding of science isn&#039;t available even to working researchers in an adjacent field, much less the layperson. As a personal example - I was very sick a few years back and was eventually referred to a psychiatrist b/c of what appeared to be severe depression. I was referred to a specialist for ECT (electro-convulsive therapy) - I did my research before going in and then asked the doctor for an explanation of how ECT worked (I&#039;d found at least a dozen &quot;possible theories&quot; online but no consensus of why or even clear indications of for whom ECT would work - it seemed to be a spin of the roulette wheel) - the doctor, whose specialty practice consisted almost entirely of giving ECT treatment as the preferred treatment for depression (even for non-treatment resistant depression) gave me the &quot;rebooting your computer analogy&quot; as the best he could offer. I was shown a video on the advances in ECT technology (a muscle block is applied so there are no convulsions) and the side-effects (memory loss, short and possibly long term) and the need for continuing treatments (in blocks of six over two weeks and then less frequently for an indefinite period of time) but I went away with little confidence in the technology and less in the doctor; rejecting the ECT treatments offered. Later, my GP tested me for Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick Fever and treated me with doxycycline (approved in 1967) and I began to feel better within three days and made a full recovery . . . but as a result of basic diagnostic work - the process of specialization and referral failed me and it was only my own sense that what the experts were telling me might not be true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="smcder, post: 173650"] [I]"The ONLY REAL motivator when it comes to public distrust of the scientific community is how precisely science has been relegated to just another commercial enterprise. That wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. TOTAL BIAS."[/I] I'm not sure it's the only motivator but I was thinking about what is portrayed as science to the general public is much more often applied science/ development of technology instead of basic research and what we see of that really is corporate/commercial enterprise [url="http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm?CFID=12450800&CFTOKEN=24206977&jsessionid=f0306d79f76f9fbb56763561526b29757256"]Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy[/url] The discussion also generally reminded me of what seems to be a tremendous dis-satisfaction with mainstream medical treatment and growing interest in alternative medical treatments - a very complicated thing but one aspect of which I think may be a greater feeling of control and understanding by the user of alternative treatments - you can purchase them freely and apply them at home without dealing with the time/cost and complexity of accessing the mainstream medical system. (I am not saying there is no scientific support for alternative medicine) And there is also a tie in here with I believe Chris' idea that an understanding of science isn't available even to working researchers in an adjacent field, much less the layperson. As a personal example - I was very sick a few years back and was eventually referred to a psychiatrist b/c of what appeared to be severe depression. I was referred to a specialist for ECT (electro-convulsive therapy) - I did my research before going in and then asked the doctor for an explanation of how ECT worked (I'd found at least a dozen "possible theories" online but no consensus of why or even clear indications of for whom ECT would work - it seemed to be a spin of the roulette wheel) - the doctor, whose specialty practice consisted almost entirely of giving ECT treatment as the preferred treatment for depression (even for non-treatment resistant depression) gave me the "rebooting your computer analogy" as the best he could offer. I was shown a video on the advances in ECT technology (a muscle block is applied so there are no convulsions) and the side-effects (memory loss, short and possibly long term) and the need for continuing treatments (in blocks of six over two weeks and then less frequently for an indefinite period of time) but I went away with little confidence in the technology and less in the doctor; rejecting the ECT treatments offered. Later, my GP tested me for Rocky Mountain Spotted Tick Fever and treated me with doxycycline (approved in 1967) and I began to feel better within three days and made a full recovery . . . but as a result of basic diagnostic work - the process of specialization and referral failed me and it was only my own sense that what the experts were telling me might not be true. [/QUOTE]

Verification