Improving Science for a Better Future by Mohammed M. Khalil

Hi Mohammed,

You have given a really thorough examination of the problems facing science and given very clear solutions. I found the discussion of the current problems with the quality control of published work eye opening. Also the bias introduced by not publishing negative results was a really interesting observation.I am quite staggered by the sheer number of papers published each year.

An interesting discussion of public education, good news too with the uptake of online university courses. You have given an optimistic view that science and technology will be able to solve future problems and you gave some very interesting examples. Relevant,informative and well written. Good luck,Georgina

Dear Prospective Doctor Khalil,

Your essay was excellent. I do hope that it does well in the contest.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Hello Mohammed,

I greatly enjoyed your essay and I agree with the premise that Science as we know it needs some repairs. Actually; I've been trying to highlight and address some of the same problems for several years now. I have attached the slides and proceedings paper for my FFP11 talk "Learning to Cooperate for Progress in Physics," which I think fills in some of the areas your paper does not discuss. You will find additional sources about this and other topics related to your essay in my own offering for this year's contest. You will also find Phil Gibbs' essay worthwhile to read, because he speaks at length about the peer-review story your essay touches on.

I wish you luck!

Regards,

JonathanAttachment #1: 2_JDickauFFP11.pdfAttachment #2: Learning_to_Cooperate_for_Progress_in_Physics.pdf

Dear Mohammad

Azeem! A fantastic essay! It is astonishing to see how an undergraduate has accumulated, digested and creatively presented so much knowledge and his own ideas about it in such a lucid manner. Brilliant.

Having said that I see that the enthusiasm of youth is matched by its idealism. Many of the suggestions you make are eminently practical and should be implemented. Yet you ignore the problems of simple human limitations. Alas self interest, laziness and the inertia of things as they are - i.e. political, social and religious factors - may well stand in the way of realizing the wonderful scenario you have presented.

Take environmental policy: have governments and businesses taken a concerted unified approach to solving such problems as carbon emissions? Hardly. This crucial human factor is discussed by Sabine Hossenfelder in her fqxi essay. Your idea about peer review after publication is akin to Philip Gibb's essay.

By the way you start your essay with a reference to relativity and quantum mechanics. These two fields too are long due for revamping, as I discussed in my fqxi essay of some years past "Fix Physics!"

It is refreshing to read your enlightened ideas from the city that boasted the great lighthouse and Library of ancient times. Good luck.

Vladimir

Mohammed,

Your solutions require openness and equal media access. I believe you correctly identify the shortcomings of the current system. Certainly science is the guide to the future and improvements are in order. My fear is that monolithic corporations with control over energy, investment, government and the media -- and increasingly what is researched in the academic world, has an agenda which does not include long-term solutions regarding climate change, alternative energy sources, and research on the foregoing problems. Technology and science discoveries have an emphasis on weaponry, fossil fuel discovery and pharmaceuticals in the US. It is hard to break the monopoly on resource use based on profit.

You do present aspects of science that need improvement, especially in open applications of technology, and we do need a common good solution. This I also discuss.

Jim

Hi Mohammed,

You wrote a fact-packed and easy to read essay. The F1000Research Journal sounds like a worthwhile idea. I will check it out.

Your comment on negative results made my day but from a different perspective than yours. For the past years, I have been working to identify how to naturally extract water vapor indigenously from the air we breathe anywhere in the world. I believe this is the only long-term way to solve safe water supply issues everywhere without resorting to transporting, cleaning etc efforts. After all, nature's water cycle is a water purification and delivery machine that holds safe water as vapor in the air we breathe. If you want, you can visit my blog here

To solve this I have been talking, for example, to the pharmaceutical industry about sharing with me the circumstances when unwanted moisture ruins a batch of medicines. They don't seem to keep good records on this and part of my difficulty is in their hesitation to tell me how they failed.

My only quibble and a minor one with your essay is that it did not address more on expanding use of science but, maybe, because you are personally more focused on adding more science.

The very best of luck in this essay competition

-Ajay

Hi Vladimir and Mohammed,

My dictionary says: "If someone revamps a system, group, or organization, they make changesto it in order to try and improve it and hide its faults; often used showing disapproval". I guess Vladimir didn't intend hiding faults.

Mohammed wrote: "we need as many people as possible". Hm.Aren't there already many unemployed people in particular in Muslim countries with rapidly growing population? I know, you meant it differently.

Nonetheless, not just the prophet Mohammed could not yet envision that the growing number of people who are producing mounting dangerous waste and goods of questionable use while believing in the wonder that the resources will be sufficient for maybe 100 billion people too.

I think science needs honest work and consequent responsibility rather than unlimited funding. Public peer review after publication might really be a good idea as to stop too prolific paper fabricators.

How do you imagine peace between Arabs and Jews as long as both sides are or at least pretend to be overly patriotic in their beliefs?

I hope, at least you Mohammed are young and flexible enough as to learn from those who faced disasters like WWII, holocaust, and loss home. My essay is an attempt to make you aware of our common responsibility.

Eckard

Hi Ajay,

Waiting so far in vain for a reply by Mohammed, I read your idea. Yes, we say the devil is in the detail. In Europe we are familiar with acid rain. Recently I heard that multi-resistance is a growing problem in Calcutta. Too many people would cause huge unseen difficulties. What do you mean, how many people does the earth need?

Curious,

Eckard

Hi Mohammed,

Very nice essay, I enjoyed reading it. You are right about the publishing process, in particular regarding publishing negative reviews, confirming the results of research, peer review done more seriously (often reviewers don't give full consideration when accepting, but also when rejecting a paper, for being an alternative approach). You are also right with involving more the scientists, and especially with your views on access to education and empowering people to participate to global decisions. We can do better science, and we can raise awareness of the global problems by education.

Good luck with the contest, and with your research!

Cristi

Mohammed,

Can you please reveal to me how "that for an improvement to happen, people must first believe in the necessity of doing so, especially scientists, engineers, and policy makers" explains your claim "we need as many people as possible"?

Is it an improvement when Muslim women believe in the necessity to get pregnant? Obviously, the amount of unemployed people as well as other problems including destruction of environment are worse in Muslim countries than in countries without rapidly growing population. Neither Philip Gibbs nor Sabine Hossenfelder will save the world. They and you are perhaps not even aware of the consequences a quite simple fact: Discoveries, inventions, and the like are a mounting treasure of the whole world, not of rivaling nations, religions or other groups. If something will steer humanity to the better then certainly this fact.

Fix science? We seem to differ. In my essay I tried to critically analyze what might be wrong on a very basic level instead of focusing on symptoms.

Eckard