User talk:Ed Poor/scientific controversy

True scientific controversy is healthy and involves disagreements over how data should be interpreted, over which ideas are best supported by the evidence, and over which ideas are worth investigating further. 


 * A scientific controversy is a sustained, public debate among the broader scientific community in which arguments are based on evidence.


 * Controversies cause progress in science by encouraging research on the topic in question.


 * Controversies are resolved when the evidence overwhelmingly favors one argument.


 * Scientific controversies are distinct from political, ethical, and personal controversies, though sometimes they overlap or can have complex interactions.

Science controversies can be distinguished from one another on whether the issue of controversy is a matter of ethics, a matter needing further scientific research, or a need to make public policy decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Effective communication about the relevant issues underlying any science controversy can be improved with education about both the facts and the process of empirical science. Improved communication strategies may support the public interest in science, more effectively incorporate the public voice into policy outcomes, and improve the level of trust between the public and the research scientists. 

Controversies are ongoing in every field of science on a regular basis. For example, as of 2010, geophysicists are engaged in a debate about the existence of mantle plumes, thin columns of hot rock that rise from the Earth’s core to the surface and cause volcanic activity. 

What it's not:
 * The debate over the existence of mantle plumes is clearly a scientific controversy, and most scientific controversies similarly have little to do with personal, ethical, or political controversies. On the other end of the spectrum, the controversy about the use of stem cells harvested from human embryos in biomedical research is not a scientific controversy – scientists agree about what stem cells are and how they work. Instead, the controversy instead revolves around whether or not it is ethical to use stem cells.

Traditionally it has been thought that scientific controversies can always be resolved on the basis of empirical data. Recently, however, social constructionists have claimed that the outcome of scientific debates is strongly influenced by non-evidential factors such as the rhetorical prowess and professional clout of the participants. 

Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology - Cambridge University Press

Another challenge in exploring scientific controversies is that negative results are not as easy to publish in high-visibility journals, nor do they generate as much media or public response as positive results do.