Why Should We Stick with Science If It Can Be Flawed and Lead to Erroneous Conclusions - Case Study Example

Sticking with science is justifiable, although science can be flawed and could lead to erroneous conclusions. In Wakefield’s case, his research was proved wrong.

It is difficult to arrive at a decision when conflicting reports are presented by scientists. This is because innumerable factors dictate the direction and conclusion of any research. One can never say for sure that particular research might be accurate or correctly interpreted. At such a time, it is only logical to first find out the motives behind the research. Often, the scientist’s motivations influence the research, as in Wakefield’s case. In addition to motives, the research design, methodology and interpretation should be scrutinized to identify flaws.

 It is necessary for all science to be in agreement. However, practically, this can never be the case because it is impossible to carry out perfect research. There could be bias-related errors, procedure-related errors, protocol errors, flawed reporting of results, etc. As seen in the WebMD article, evidence exists both in favor and against the link between MMR vaccination and autism, mercury (thiomersal) and autism. Opposite parties point out flaws in each other’s research. If all research were perfect, all science would definitely have been in agreement.