-
Asked by SaweraN on 5 Nov 2025.
-
Erin Pallott answered on 5 Nov 2025:
That’s a hard question to answer when I haven’t been in that position. In research, it is common to get results that go against what you expected or your hypothesis, which I have experienced, and all I can do is adjust my research question and keep moving. However, that’s a lot more minor than discovering something that goes against my personal philosophies and beliefs! I would like to think I would accept those results and think rationally about where to look next, but scientists are human and humans aren’t always rational and unbiased!
-
-
Amy Mason answered on 5 Nov 2025:
My core belief is that we should change our opinion when data says that we are wrong. This can sometimes be hard, and the instinct is to argue that the data has been analysed wrong etc. The main trick is to notice when you are doubling down and resisting new data because it disagrees with you, and then sitting with the discomfort.
-
Boatemaa Ofori-Frimpong answered on 5 Nov 2025:
Having an open mind is very important as a scientist. This helps you to be logical and try to understand why beliefs or ethics contrary to yours may exist. You can then think about the impact of these beliefs and how it will affect those who believe in it.
-
Melissa Upjohn answered on 6 Nov 2025: last edited 16 Nov 2025 21:39
This is an excellent question, one I have come across quite a bit in the world of being a vet. If the new discovery relates to science, then I need to review my beliefs, to question myself about whether I should adapt them to reflect the new information. This might mean that I would advocate for animal free testing of pharmaceuticals and support science which investigates ways of reducing use of animals in testing, while ensuring that the products are safe for use. There is an ongoing debate in the UK about animal welfare at the time of animals being killed for meat – as a vet I believe that the science says that animals are sentient (They feel pain, they feel emotions), my belief is that this science means that animals which are killed for food need to be humanely stunned before killing, so that they are unconscious and don’t suffer. But there are some religions which, historically, have required animals to be conscious at the time of slaughter and these religions argue that the science backs up their view that suffering which the animal experiences is not real and therefore there’s not sufficient reason to change this opinion. This is tricky, how do we balance religious freedom against animal welfare? I’m not a follower of those religions so it’s difficult for me to understand that viewpoint. For me, I balance it by not eating food which is produced according to those religious principles. When/if I visit a country that follows those principles I only eat vegetarian.
Comments