According to the studies conducted by Space biologists Joshua P. Vandenbrink and John Z. Kiss in the Department of Biology, University of Mississippi USA, they found it interesting to study plant physiology and development in a unique environment of microgravity where they found that plants can grow seed-to-seed in microgravity as well as identifying the responses to other stimuli like light.
Initially, the experiments were carried out with difficulty. Still, the investigations and studies later determined that the improved experiments should be designed to maximize the value and applicability of the results generated.8
Critical analysis of scientific theories has been beneficial because it sets the grounds for more reliable approaches, novel scientific methodologies, and techniques, setting up systematic and well-organized research solutions and pioneering ways to advance inventions.
The main goal of scrutinizing the scientific approaches is to enhance societal well-being. Scientific theory is not stagnant; it flows for improvement in one way or another until it becomes a unanimous solution.
As Paloto said, “Science is nothing but perception”. Ever since prehistoric scholars began documenting their observations and experimentation, their research has been challenged by their peers and descendants, generation after generation. For decades, knowledge meant the knowledge proven, either by intellectual commentary, sensical shreds of evidence, or by systematic counter.2
The Historical Chinese Perspective
History narrates some exciting twists in scientific evolution, mainly affected by social and cultural influences. Some societies, like Chinese and Indian culture, had solid affiliations with sacred elements, more of a metaphysical nature, and supernatural powers. So, they somehow denied the involvement of scientific principles and natural phenomena.
The attitude of Chinese society towards natural phenomena was quite different from that of European countries, mainly during the Renaissance period.
The Chinese were stubborn about separating material things from their sacred world. They had no evident conviction that people could dominate nature and have any influential role in natural occurrences.
Nor even were they interested in developing a scientific method for their observations, due to which their theories often remained divorced from experimentation (Hellemans & Bunch, 1988, p. 59)1
What Is Good About Critical Analysis?
The critical approach paves the way for continued research and makes it more beneficial. It provides solid grounds for the continuation of the process. Unlike any other discipline, which might not need analysis for its continuity, scientific methodology and study of nature involve constant assessment and evaluation.
The scientific method is interrogated at every step to redefine the procedures for repeated results unless it becomes a theory or a law.
The nature of critical studies in science depends upon the nature of the scientific discipline. For instance, history and sociology of science demonstrate the socially determined origins of scientific ideas and methodologies by critical analysts (Kuhn, 1970; Latour, 1987; Shapin, 1995; Thackray, 1995; Fine, 1996).
The analysts who evaluate the cultural aspects of scientific data are mostly related to the dimensions of the communities and cultures in which they live (Pickering, 1992; Rouse, 1993).
Philosophical analysts assess the values, principles, and interests that construct the research methodology and its effects.(Kuhn, 1970; Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970; Longino, 1990; Proctor, 1991; Rorty, 1991; Feyerabend, 1993).3
Interesting Instances of Critical Research
The case studies regarding how the critical viewpoints have expanded, improved, and navigated the discoveries and provided well-researched, durable, and reliable solutions to problems faced by humanity, for instance, drug designing, mechanical solutions, pathological testing for disease diagnosis, and other disciplines of scientific research.
Medicine, health, and science are ripe with disputes and debates. Throughout history, spirited replies and rebuttals have been written and accompanied by rejoinders, responses, and editorials, and helped clarify or rebut essential concepts.4
Humoral Immunity to Severe COVID-19
The expert pediatricians (Fanous et al. (2020)) claimed that the neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 have generally been assumed to be protective against COVID-19 but with limited durability.
Humoral immunity is the ability of B cells to bind to a specific antigen, against which it will trigger an antibody response. Many factors that lead to severe immunodeficiencies are characterized by life-threatening viral infections that determine the susceptibility to severe cases of COVID-19.
However, further research proved that these neutralizing antibody responses are not demonstrated to be protective against or susceptible to severe cases of COVID-19.7
Anaphylactic Reactions to Pfizer’s Vaccine
All vaccines, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, should meet the criteria of safety, effectiveness, durability, affordability, and availability requirements. According to the informative investigation by de Vrieze (2021) that reports:
“At least 12 people suffered an anaphylactic reaction after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine,” then how could the vaccine have been approved as safe, especially given the widely self-reported success rates claimed by Pfizer and BioNTech of around 95 percent in the news and social media reporting?
The investigations found the cause may be due to the compound polyethylene glycol (PEG) in their vaccine, which is also contained in the vaccine produced by Moderna.
Anaphylactic reactions are frequently caused by bee stings, eating peanuts, and some other varieties of tree nuts, so the compound polyethylene glycol (PEG) must have been known to cause similar reactions in vaccinated individuals, regardless of its previous use in vaccines.
As this was purportedly the first time the PEG compound was used in vaccine production, greater scrutiny should have been instigated and investigated in clinical laboratory trials before the vaccines were submitted for regulatory approval.
References:
- https:/us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/6072_book_item_6072.pdf
- https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/ph201/week05_xtra_lakatos.pdf
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953698002329
- From practice to research: The case for criticism in an age of evidence – ScienceDirect
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9787955/
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09581596.2021.1878109
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e4dt218QATmg6c-mZ5MwM3AmDdh_VaNO/vie
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168945215301047
More from the author: Excessive use of Technology links with Neurochemistry of the Brain
Muniba Usman is a high school teacher and teaching trainer by profession. She has a BS (HONS) in Microbiology and a diploma in Textile and Fashion design. She has a strong passion for research, arts, reading and writing. She has written many scientific articles and fiction stories for children.
