SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Public trust that scientists work for the good of society is growing
These days, it can seem as if science is under assault. Climatologists are routinely questioned about what's really causing global warming. Doctors can be disparaged for trying to vaccinate children against disease.
But for the U.S. public at large, scientists are generally seen as a trustworthy bunch. In fact, 86 percent of Americans hold at least "a fair amount" of confidence that scientists work for the public good, according to a survey released August 2 by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.
That's far better than how respondents felt about what motivates politicians (only 35 percent said they were fairly confident that elected officials acted in the public interest), journalists (47 percent) or even religious leaders (57 percent). And that general trust in the goodwill of scientists has grown steadily over the last four years, from 76 percent in 2016.
But confidence falters on narrower questions of scientists' trustworthiness. For instance:
- The kind of scientist matters. Nearly half — 48 percent — thought doctors gave fair and accurate information, but only 32 percent thought the same of medical researchers. Dieticians also were considered trustworthy by 47 percent of respondents, while that number fell to 24 percent for nutrition scientists. Overall, scientists whose work involved engaging with the public tended to be more trusted than those focused on research;
- How research is funded matters. More than half of respondents — 58 percent — said they are less trusting of studies financed by industry. And there's skepticism that scientists reveal all of their industry ties: Fewer than 2 in 10 people thought scientists always disclosed conflicts of interest with industry, or faced stern consequences for failing to do so;
- Sometimes, who is being asked matters. On questions of scientific misconduct, black and Hispanic respondents were more likely than whites to see it as a "big problem." That could reflect wariness due to past cases of experiments being conducted without patients' consent, such as the decades-long Tuskegee Study in which hundreds of black men with syphilis were denied treatment (SN: 3/1/75, p. 134), the Pew report notes. Or it could reflect the fact that, when it comes to environmental justice, these communities are often more likely to be affected by unchecked pollution (SN: 12/6/97, p. 366).
"The issue of trust in scientists is part of a broader conversation that society is having on the role and value of experts," says Cary Funk, the director of Pew's science and society research. "What we wanted to do was get a look at the potential sources of mistrust."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @07:31PM (2 children)
The only reason it could cause a recession is because the economic system is so fragile to begin with (it is basically ponzi scheme bubbles forming on prior ponzi scheme bubbles). Is your software one that is tending to one of these bubbles?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @12:33AM (1 child)
It would cause it because it funds thousands of businesses. It is called fractional reserve banking. The amounts that flow through that system would fund large countries governments. But it is not really 'the banks' money. It is other peoples money and they move it around to keep your bank account looking like it has money in it. In the US it is called the federal reserve rate.
Do not underestimate this system and how it has created and shapes our way of life. Collapse it, and it would be *chaos*. Remember too big to fail? They meant it. I thought they were being hyperbolic when I first heard that BS line. But now working inside the system. Holy molly guacamole. I personally think these mega banks should be sliced into thousands of smaller ones. The risk is just too big.
Without this system in place the place you work for would not be able to pay your salary. They just would not have the funds for it. It is a pity that most of this sort thing is not until you reach macro economics 4xx classes. It really would help people better understand the creature we created in 1913.
To call it a ponzi scheme is not quite the right word for it. That is just hyperbole but this system is subject to some interesting things. It has stabilized what we do in the world like nothing else. Just look to bitcoin for the wild gestations of what an unregulated currency looks like. Take for example deflation. If you have borrowed money for a car or a house or a credit card you should never want to see deflation. A unstable currency creates that all the time. Where cash hording is more profitable.
Fragile not the right word either. The system can withstand some serious pounding. But the system I work on if it did not work correctly would cause massive damage. But not at the bank level. At your pocketbook level. Your job or whoever you work for just would not be able to pay you. Why not the bank level? We have already given them all of our money... Then turn around as soon as we get any and give it right back to them somehow. EIther buy buying stuff from a store (who gives it to a bank). Or direct deposit (right into a bank). etc ect etc... They fart around with more money in a month than you and your entire family will ever play with. Even if your somehow related to someone like bill gates. Even that is off by a factor of 15x. That is just 1 bank and 1 division. There are a few dozen others just as big.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @01:04AM
What about "check kiting permitted by the government"?