Before of annoying you with my bad english, I think is better if I state the following: I work in the "private sector", where we call "Emerging Technology" the department where you monitor and study what is, let's say, in the first phase of the Gertner's curve.
For people which never read about it, a Gartner's curve is something like that:
I say I work in the private sector because I want people to see my bias: In the past I've worked with Educational&Research , so with academy and foundations, still I was in the private sector, doing what we used to call "Supercomputing". Nevertheless, please meet my bias.
I know the "common user" thinks we are living the era of science. This is because the private sector is flooding the market, the consumer market, with a load of innovations. This means, consumers are thinking that we (=the human kind) are doing better and more science than before.
Sure, there were centuries when it was much hard to do science: think to Holy Inquisition and Galileo, by example. Or, more recent, think to the fact Heisenberg was ostracized because he was a jew, like "Do you really believe the jew's physics?". And the wrong answer could have costed your life.
Nevertheless, there were much better years: today, I'm sorry to say, Science is not in a good shape in general.
And this sounds incredible if you compare with the incredible amount of innovating technologies you are flooded with. But... look at them under the physics point of view: whatever new "technology" you have, is still about electrons, photons and silicon. Almost all of them. Some diagnostic into hospitals is using the proton's spin, nuclear plants are about neutrons. Not even half a dozen of particles.
Now, how many particles do we know? Well... a lot. We know entire families. And we are using just a few.
This is to say, what we call "technology" is not that "innovative" as it seems: is basically more sophisticated and capable. But, if we ask "how much innovation".... well, we about electrons and photons, 99% of times . Sure, they are quite interesting particles. Still, boring flat.
Forget for a while about technology, and stop thinking new technology is saying "science is going better". Consumer technology is industry, not "science". It makes use of science, but... it makes A LITTLE use of some little details: most of times is silicon, electrons, photons.
Now, the issue is "what about science?". Under my point of view, science is into some dark age. For many reasons, mostly related to the freedom of speech, bad funding , and incompetent press.
Let's start with bad funding.
It is not like "there are no money". Henry Markram got €1Bn to create a simulation of brain. Which is a pretty good amount of money. The problem is what they are funding, and why.
Science is based on peer review. Peer review works by repeating experiments or re-processing the same data, and checking if results are matching. Peer review seems something "which happens later", which "someone else will do", nevertheless is the core of science itself.
In the private sector there are no papers: there are patents. There are no peer review: the product must work. In the very science, peer review is the way to check if the experiment was flawed or not. It's crucial.
It requires money. How many peer reviews are being funded today?
The amount of papers selected by peer review today is less than 1% of the total. Why? Well... people wants researchers and scientists to publish, because of influence index. So almost nobody is funding peer review. Which is crucial for science.
Science ended in a situation where 99% of papers are just the opinion of a brunch of scientists , somewhere. I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying, there is a little way to know if they are wrong or not. 99% of times. The picture of a disaster.
This is because the peer review is scarcely funded: the core, most crucial mechanism of science is now broken. Read those number: "less than 1% of papers are selected for peer review". Impressive. A disaster.
This is the effect of incompetent funding.
Let's go with freedom of speech.
Science is based on the chance , for everybody, to find errors in theories, emend papers, writings, experiments. Not only peer reviews: I am talking about debate. Just talking. Is it possible today? Well, depends by the topic.
Imagine I work with computational models. Well, "Big Data" is. Imagine I have a blog. Imagine I have questions about the models made by the IPCC. Imagine, I say imagine, I want to say "Dear IPCC, don't you think some of your assumptions are a bit strong"? I know the IPCC needs this assumptions to make computing easier, still I could say "those assumptions need a little more research". It's criticism, which was always good in science. Now, I am NOT saying their models are bad. I am not saying "I don't believe that". I would be just discussing. Or maybe posting an opinion on my personal blog.
What will happen if one does that? In the best case, nothing. In the worst case, ALL of the Right-wing magazines in the USA will title "independent researcher in Europe says Climate Change is a fake". They would take some single sentences from one's writing, 'til he would be "the guy which debunked the IPCC".
Now, maybe the IPCC could answer my questions back, like "sure! Give us the budget, and we will simulate it better!". Or maybe they would not be able to, because of a mass of rednecks with pitchforks and shotguns. Anyhow, if I even had doubt about this simulation, I do prefer stay silent than write it on my blog. I don't think the resulting debate (if any) would be something useful.
I mean, if you find a mistake into the IPCC model, and you fix it, what you get on the press could be:
- Mistake fixed on IPCC model. Now we have a better model for the Global Warming.
- Guy in Europe debunks the Global Warming Hoax
And ... guess who will win. I think today NOBODY would dare to fix an error in the IPCC simulation. Science works by improvements and peer reviews, but when it comes to the Climate Change or Global Warming, "peer review" is not being "peer review": it enters some hell of a debate, where you "debunked the Global Warming Hoax" , just because you improved the model.
Another piece broken: on hot topics, politicians made it hard to exchange ideas in public. Maybe lot of scientists are able to provide suggestions and fixes for the IPCC model on Climate Change. They will not, because once one says "this could be improved", politicians will say "this guy debunked the Global Warming".
And here we are with incompetent press
When it comes to make politics out of science, press is the convicted number 1 for me. And when it comes to make people to shit on scientists, press is the convicted #1 too.
Let's do an example.
Have you read about the Artificial Intelligence being one of the bigger threats for the humankind? Of course. Have you read about how machines could decide to exterminate us, boring humans? Of course. Stephen Hawkins said that, right?
Well, no. He never said that. Actually he did quite a long reasoning about military utilization of the AI , but this was "cherry picked" by the press, making it true that we (yes, I work with that) are building Skynet. Which, of course, will decide to exterminate the whole humankind , just a few nanoseconds after it "get self-conscious". Whatever it means.
Now, is there ANY science behind it? Do you know of any "self-conscious" AI? Is there any case study of a single "self-conscious whatsoever" we 've built? No. Is there a single AI which killed a person? A single , documented case of an AI which "decided" to kill one person, aware of what killing means? No.
If we were supposed to be afraid of some intelligence which decides to kill, I would say the human intelligence has a well documented record of doing that , quite efficiently and brutally: we don't have any science, neither studies, of Artificial intelligence killing people knowing what "killing" means.
So where this buzz comes from? From Hollywood. We have plenty of movies with machines being "self conscious" and aiming to destroy the whole humankind.
Who made the Hollywood to be "science"?
Do we have a single episode of DNA editing , creating a monster which kills people, until some hero with muscles kills it in some blasting way? Do we have a single example of a single experiment on DNA which escapes the control, and destroys cities? No. Do we have a single example of a single person made sick by a GMO? No. Do we have any scientific literature of monsters created by accident which are kidnapping gorgeous blondes in stockings? No.
Nevertheless, when we talk about genomics, we always read (on the press) about concerns: creating new species will make all of us in danger because , you know, scientists are always very good in losing the control of their experiments. It's obvious , if you do the LHC, you will create an interdimensional hole which will disintegrate the planet. Because scientists are always losing the control of what they do.
Do we have any single known case of an accelerator creating some "interdimensional" whatever with the power to destroy a whole universe? Uhm.... being honest, we never went even close to it.
To be clear, the amount of experiments which were out of control in a way they exit the lab and killed people (and needed the army to stop that) is ... zero. Seems when people is losing control of something, usually is quite incompetent, which is not the same as being a scientist. Looks like the opposite.
Nevertheless, the press talks about machines taking the power and killing us. They talk about genetic mutations running out of labs and kidnapping blondes under the shower. They talk about the LHC creating black holes which could destroy the universe.
We know from the press that, if we edit the human DNA at will, "everybody will be tall, blonde and blue-eyed". I don't know how the press knows almost every non-white father wants to look like a cuckold having a blonde , white baby: I'm still collecting data. I personally doubt asians and african people are that anxious to have tall, blonde , blue-eyed babies. (Most likely people will just have healthier babies.)
But this is what the press writes. Everyday.
This creates hostility and distrust in science. Which reflects in politics: no politicians wants to admit they funded one experiment to create a new mutant bean which will escape the lab and kidnap your sister. No government wants to admit they funded an accelerator which "plays to be God" and could disintegrate the universe.
In general, I would say science is in a Middle Age, again. They suffer of the same problems they had. The lack of investments on peer review is making them to work by Authority: "this well known scientists said that". The lack of investments on peer review makes them keeping "most likely" theories alive. Aristotelianism.
A bad press is keeping funding out of the most interesting fields: Intelligence, DNA, High energy physics, just because Hollywood has made lot of movies about this and that, and the press is selling them as true.
Last but least, politicians entered the arena, making a hell to debate: whatever a scientist says about its field, is now being a debate , and not the kind of debate which makes sense.
Consumers are living under the impression that science is now better than anytime before, but this is not true. Industry is raging, the stack of application is growing, which doesn't means science is in a good shape.
Science is lacking freedom, competent funding and a positive public mood. Which is more Middle Age than modern age.