Is Science Broken?

It is an internet truism that anytime an article is titled with a question, that the answer is "no." This article, to my mind, is trying to say "yes" when in fact it is saying "the realities of science are poorly known." The way science is done is a human system complete with human foibles, yes, but it is also a self-correcting one.

the public is often unaware that science is a dynamic rather than static endeavour: it doesn’t “prove” anything, as ideas and theories are constantly evolving based on combinations of new and existing data.

What the public often sees as a problem, I would argue is actually a feature. For science to progress in the face of the human foibles (arrogance, self-interest) science cannot be "static." It has to look at what came before, test it, and improve upon it.

So, while we can certainly improve (oh lordy yes) the way that we as humans conduct ourselves when doing science, the problem is less about science than it is about the interface between scientists and the public.

If it sounds like I am arguing with the author, I don't think I am. I think that we share many of the same thoughts, and I look forward to her article on how science (and the interface with the public) can be improved.