Does seemingly pointless scientific research annoy you?

Jono8

Jono8

Jono8

Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
41,032
Location
Surrey
It annoys the hell out of me

Here is the latest example, an actual headline on the BBC news website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8660373.stm

There are many more pointless examples as well which i will search for and add to this thread. Would be good if others could find any particular ones they find ridiculous.

a few others:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/6935127.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559749/Girly-men-are-perfect-partners-say-women.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20725154/from/ET/wid/11915773?gt1=10412


Shouldnt time, effort, people/scientists and money be put into more pressing and conclusive scientific dilema's rather than finding out absolutely unhelpful rubbish?

Related to this, I also believe that learning difficulties and pyschological disorders have been hugely blown out of proportion these days:

http://medicalethics.suite101.com/article.cfm/are-americas-children-being-made-drug-addicts


"Pediatricians and psychiatrists then treat the mental illness with some of the most dangerous and addictive substances known to the modern world with relative disregard for bio-individuality. The result for far too many of these children is a life of private suffering.

To some extent “Labeling a child, "mentally ill," is like hanging a sign around his or her neck saying, "GARBAGE: take it away," says Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York."

Almost everyone I know has some kind of learning difficulty or mental illness of some sort. I think thats "scientists" have been spending too much simply labeling different personality's and intelligence levels.

Thoughts?

P.S. Don't get me wrong ,there of course very serious mental illnesses that do need to be treated appropriately
 
Last edited:
The lack of sleep one could be seen as significant i guess, with sleep disorders and so on. The breast bounce was obviously significant to everyday life :o
 
It's like when you get the temp at work to make tea and do photocopying and other such 'non' jobs.

All the real scientists are working at curing cancer/reaching mars etc and they make the others count how long people sleep so that they dont get in the way and knock over the experiments.
 
The body fat one is a joke because no one goes for fatties only other fatties, that's just something everyone knows.

The 'girly men' one looks rather pointless but I'm guessing that research could be linked to other other research about how people perceive other people due to certain personality traits etc. Might be rather useful really.

The sleep one is important because sleep is well needed and the more we understand sleeping and how it affects out body the better.

As silly as the breast one is it holds some meaning because woman with large breasts due suffer quite a bit of pain because of them when exercising.


Not sure why you have decided to pick three studies that seem to be over 3 years old by the way, but what ever. As Mr. Jones says they are just for the general public to understand really. You would probably see those articles in The Sun.
 
Last edited:
Yes but in that sleep article it says:

Professor Jim Horne, of the Loughborough Sleep Research Centre, said other factors may be involved rather than sleep per se.

"Sleep is just a litmus paper to physical and mental health. Sleep is affected by many diseases and conditions, including depression," he said.

And getting improved sleep may not make someone better or live longer, he said.

"But having less than five hours a night suggests something is probably not right.

"Five hours is insufficient for most people and being drowsy in the day increases your risk of having an accident if driving or operating dangerous machinery."

So basically they have found out that being drowsy and tired will make you act....drowsy and tired.

brilliant..
 
Mr Jones said:
Try research like this:
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/
Seems rather pointless yet useful in further understanding.

News articles will be posting food for thought for the Joe public, most of the real research papers would be too deep or require further support to bring forth a new understanding.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is clearly useful.

I think I just don't like all this un-exact science that we get these days which i think is mainly due to pyschologists/psuedo scientists having to much time on their hands (..or in their heads)
 
Faraday was criticised in his day for doing Electro Magnetic experiments, but I must agree some of the research done by so called scientists nowadays is stretching credibility a bit.
 
Jono8 said:
Yes, but that is clearly useful.

I think I just don't like all this un-exact science that we get these days which i think is mainly due to pyschologists/psuedo scientists having to much time on their hands (..or in their heads)
Click to expand...

TBH, they'll always need to do such research and publishing their results to share with fellow academic, no matter how 'mundane' or useless they sound. This is what research is all about, publishing publishing publishing, be it from pyschologists/psuedo scientists or papers regarding more important areas such as cancer or fuel alternatives.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE is, news corp will only be able to digest the more 'interesting' papers for the public, or at least the stats they can understand from research papers. It's all about what the media can 'understand' and write for their readers, thus many rather 'useless' scientific publishing surfacing in the mainstream media. Read New Scientist (probably as basic as it gets for public readership), the difference in the type of research getting mentioned compared to The Sun / Daily Mail or even the BBC is startling.
 
No, these things are often nice to know and I like knowing these little things. The only time I don't like them is when it's coming from tax money, however, especially the first link, I find very interesting. I'm actually more annoyed that some people want to stop it :p. Unless it's your tax money I fail to see how you can find these things annoying, I mean, why are you bothered in what other people are interested in ?

I love statistics, of any sort.
 
Just remember that as taxpayers we all spend at least £100 a year each for scientists to smash two marbles together. Yes that means you.

OK they aren't marbles they are protons, but the public do have a right to know where "THEIR MONEY", is spent by governments and to criticise them justly.
 
Because the LHC is obviously a pointless fun activity that scientists are carrying out.
 
Not really. I suppose they sometimes get surprising results which would lead to more 'serious' research being carried out. The topics covered by newspapers tend to be of a more populist nature anyway.
 
Azza said:
Because the LHC is obviously a pointless fun activity that scientists are carrying out.
Click to expand...

You missed my point pal.

I'm all for Scientific research and are happy for the peeps at CERN to smash away.

I'm just equally happy for taxpayers to question governments on where taxpayers money goes.
 
digipeep said:
You missed my point pal.

I'm all for Scientific research and are happy for the peeps at CERN to smash away.

I'm just equally happy for taxpayers to question governments on where taxpayers money goes.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately many of the taxpayers in question probably wouldn't be able to tell you what H2O is, let alone make any sort of informed judgement on the value and validity of research other than what their paper of choice tells them.

Most of the research that makes it into the news as "silly" is just one aspect of much bigger projects, or a way of describing roughly what it is to journalists who probably don't have any real science qualifications, who then try and get it into something that will catch the attention of their readers (and in the case of some papers, that might mean getting it down to the absolute most basic terms possible).
The reporters don't care about going into depth with it usually as science is "boring", so go with something quick and catchy most of the time (hell half the journalists don't even care about the source of the "science" if it'll sell the paper).
 
digipeep said:
Just remember that as taxpayers we all spend at least £100 a year each for scientists to smash two marbles together. Yes that means you.

OK they aren't marbles they are protons, but the public do have a right to know where "THEIR MONEY", is spent by governments and to criticise them justly.
Click to expand...

Arguably the greatest experiment ever carried out by our race and you think its a waste of money? Lol can't please some people, honestly :rolleyes:
 
Werewolf said:
Unfortunately many of the taxpayers in question probably wouldn't be able to tell you what H2O is, let alone make any sort of informed judgement on the value and validity of research other than what their paper of choice tells them.

Most of the research that makes it into the news as "silly" is just one aspect of much bigger projects, or a way of describing roughly what it is to journalists who probably don't have any real science qualifications, who then try and get it into something that will catch the attention of their readers (and in the case of some papers, that might mean getting it down to the absolute most basic terms possible).
The reporters don't care about going into depth with it usually as science is "boring", so go with something quick and catchy most of the time (hell half the journalists don't even care about the source of the "science" if it'll sell the paper).
Click to expand...

Well that is an argument against journalism, and very well made. It doesn't change my point that people no matter how thick and misguided they are have a right to question where their money is spent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom