Scientific Failure as a Public Good: Illustrating the Process of Science and Its Contrast with Pseudoscience
Scientists and science communicators often lament high-profile public failures as "hurting science" by sowing doubt that can be exploited by purveyors of pseudo-science. I will argue that, on the contrary, these public failures can play a useful role in public discourse, by illustrating the proper process of science. Failures of genuine science are characterized by engagement with the research community, debate conducted via appropriate professional channels, and self-correction by the original researchers. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is generally produced by individuals from outside the community, is promoted via mass-media channels, and involves stubborn refusal to shift conclusions in the face of criticism from the mainstream scientific community. I illustrate this contrast with three examples: the 2011 superluminal neutrino anomaly reported by the OPERA collaboration, the 2014 claim of primordial gravitational waves by the BICEP2 collaboration, and the pseudoscientific field of “hydrino” physics. The stark contrast between the process of genuine science and the behavior of pseudoscientists provides an educational opportunity that public advocates of science can use to bolster public confidence in the integrity of science.