So, now we know what science is faintly. I'd like to move on to the first step of science. The questions that scientific research begins with. There two topics I'd like to discuss. One, what kind of questions do scientists ask. And two, are all research questions allowed? Both topics refer to a short scene from the movie clip. The first topic refers to the last scene, in which Nichols Sophie discussed the exact formulation of Sophie's research question, and a second topic are all research questions permissible, evidently relates to a scene about a dog without a body. If you ask laypeople what they think scientific questions are, they come up with examples like, how can we decrease poverty and increase wealth, or why do animals do what they do? We did not make these up. These questions are the result of a survey. Apparently, there is a discrepancy between the larger how and why questions that laypeople believe scientists address, and a smaller more precise questions that scientists actually ask. In fact, scientists are interested in large hard why questions, but these are simply too large and complex to handle at once. Therefore, scientists transform these larger how and why questions into smaller factual questions, like how many, blah, blah, blah. Or yes/no questions like, is there a correlation between blah, blah, blah? An example. Consider the question how do people get malaria? This is not a relevant question anymore, but only about 50 years ago or so it was. Then people believed malaria was caused by bad air, hence its name malaria. But suppose you don't believe this and you want to study how people really get malaria. Where would you start? There's nothing concrete you can research. You first need an idea, a hunch, like the hunch William Gorgas had, the man who eventually found the correct answer. He thought, "I think mosquitoes play a role in this." So he transformed the question, how do people get malaria, into the question, do mosquitoes play a role in the transmission of malaria? But that still isn't concrete enough to study. So eventually, Gorgas came up with the following question, "If I put someone suffering from malaria in a close tent, and I add a whole collection of various mosquitoes into the tent so that they can bite the patient, and I switch the patient after a while for a healthy person, will this healthy person also get malaria?" This is a researchable question derived from the original larger how question. Now this Gorgas is not famous for this transformation for research questions. He is just a nicer more or less random example. And it shows what scientists generally are good at, transforming a larger curiosity into a manageable research question, that typically can be answered by a simple yes or no, or a number also. And now the next topic. Are all research questions allowed? A first response could be, of course, science is supposed to be free, and independent of assumptions, to boost political powers, et cetera. On second thought though, what if the answers on those questions cause harm in society? Or what if the research itself has negative consequences for those involved? According to the declaration of Helsinki, which dates in its original form from 1964 and is widely supported by most academic institutions throughout the world, humans who take part in a scientific experiment should be informed about the nature of that experiment, and should not be harmed in that experiment. According to this declaration, the question how much pain can someone withstand before he or she collapses, for example, would not be allowed. With hindsight, a quite substantial part of older, but useful, medical and psychological research becomes unethical. The famous Milgram experiment for example, look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about, does not fit the declaration of Helsinki. For animals, other regulations exist. Most Western research institutes comply with the rule, that animals should not suffer unnecessarily in scientific experiments, which makes an experiment into dogs without bodies at least dubious. How necessary is that particular research project? As for the outcome of scientific research, there are no regulations regarding societal impact of the answers on questions. Nevertheless, it's wise to also give death some consideration. What do think of the infamous bell curve research? Into this supposed relation between race, a very vague concept, and intelligence also rather, ill defined, suppose there is such a relation, would you want that to be known? Or what if scientists discover a means to manipulate the properties of unborn children? Is that the kind of knowledge we want to have and make available? There are no clear good answers on those issues, but it is the responsibility of individual scientists to at least be aware of them.
