-
Asked by daniellesalter99 to Jennie, Alberto, Chris, Emmanuel, Michelle on 18 Jun 2013. This question was also asked by madscientists, oliviatheolive, aliciadisgrace7, lawmac.
Question: Why Are You Intressted In Science?
- Keywords:
-
Jennie Douthwaite answered on 18 Jun 2013:
Science is all around us and everything we do depends on science of some kind. If we know how things work, then when things go wrong, such as in disease, we can learn how to put them right.
-
Chris Whittle answered on 21 Jun 2013:
I’ve always been interested in the way things work, but I suppose I’ve always been interested in science that can improve things for other people, which might be why I wanted to move in medical science. I think because I found biology so fascinating at school out of the three sciences that I studied, I kind of drifted to studying that.
-
Michelle Taylor answered on 21 Jun 2013:
Finding out how the natural world works and using what we know to improve our lives and use our resources sensibly is a cool way to spend the working day.
-
Emmanuel Amabebe answered on 22 Jun 2013:
I am interested in science because I want to understand why things happen and also find out the solutions to various problems people face.
-
Alberto Lapedriza answered on 25 Jun 2013:
I like knowing that I’m making an impact on people’s lives, and helping to understand how cells and organisms develop. This knowledge could be used to understand how some diseases work and to create some treatment.
Comments
alexszczech commented on :
I am not interested in all science because there are a few things that I do nto agree with. But I do like arguing theires with teachers or other people who are of reasonable intelligence. Why are you a scientist and what do you do as a scientist because I will be interested to know?
Chris commented on :
What things in science you not agree with alexszczech?
I suppose when something is a theory, then it is open to criticism, but it really depends on the theory. Something like evolution for instance, although it is a theory (as we could never feasibly prove it experimentally), it is probably the best explanation we have for the diversity of life we have on this planet. All the evidence we have (fossils, DNA, short-term changes to organisms) seems to point in this direction.
I’m a scientist because I want to be involved in pushing human knowledge just that little bit further, and make things better for people in the future. As a scientist, I research the effects of diabetes on the growth of the fetus, as diabetes can make a baby become too big, or too small when it is born.
Michelle commented on :
On the contrary – we prove evolution experimentally in the lab all the time! Bacteria evolving resistance against antibiotics is the best example of evolution in action. But we see it in flies and insects and larger organisms all the time – evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time and we can and do measure it daily in response to selection.
Chris commented on :
Indeed Michelle! Good point.
Can we still use the term ‘theory’ with evolution and still leave it open to poor debate about the matter of ‘proof’? Or can we disband the term ‘theory’ when talking about evolution completely, to save the tired arguments? Perhaps it would be better to describe it as a process?