#experimental-physics

[sxpxrmxrgxr]

[thedifferentialequationsboy]

great science can be a PR catastrophe

When the OPERA anomaly occured, the scientific team behind it announced their results and nothing more than their results, then did constant check after check, both with their theoretical models and their experiment. By all accounts, what they did was great science - not making exaggerated claims, cross-checking their results, and announcing when their own claims were invalid. It ending up being the result of faulty equipment, while seeming ridiculous, is not in too much sense a difference as forgetting a factor of two in theoretical physics; scientists are human after all. It is also understandable that the result created a media flurry that is essential to get scientific funding. The science was great. Everyone involved was a great scientist. Scientists always want to express skepticism whenever an established theory is overturned or contradicted by results. We need a preponderance of evidence before we make any claims that go against scientific consensus that comes from an abundance of experimental support. That was exactly what was done - the scientists involved made sure they checked, and checked everything they could.

But of course this was not how the media perceived it as. Which is a valuable lesson. Great science can often become a PR catastrophe. Scientific research needs money and rarely produces much that those outside of science sees as "useful" or "interesting". It is certainly not the one important thing in the world, but scientific funding is easily cut because it is very hard for scientists to justify their work. It is also a tough decision between releasing results that are easy to become sensationalized when reported on by media outlets that do not understand scientific rigor, and the loss of funding suffered by not publishing a possibly promising result. It is a fine balance to make and while our world hinges on the fundamental knowledge contributed by science - we cannot progress as a society without scientific expertise - there is also the reality that the scientific world is not the same as the "outside world". I do not think it is too much of an exaggeration to claim that scientists earn comparatively little compared to a lot of other fields. Nor do I doubt the importance of scientific rigor which should always take precendence. But we have to take more steps when we report scientific findings, even when we are doing good science, because from unfortunate realities, good science is sadly not always good for science.