User:Onchesilbeach/sandbox

Emergence of biology and chemistry as scientific disciplines
Before the emergence of modern scientific disciplines, those who observed and studied the natural world were natural philosophers, who used philosophical thinking to understand their observations of the world. Pre-Socratic philosophers, such as Anaximenes of Miletus and Democritus, realised that there were natural causes to the phenomena they observed, rather than attributing these phenomena to the action of gods.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, a number of changes led to a shift in medieval natural philosophy, from the invention of the microscope and the telescope, to the Protestant Reformation, which not only challenged the Catholic Church but also Aristotelian thought, which persisted as the main school of thought during this time. Aristotle’s idea of the universe was challenged by Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the universe, Kepler’s elliptical orbit, and Galileo’s use of the telescope to provide “visual evidence”. These events can be included as playing a part in the Scientific Revolution, as well as the development of experimental science and the use of scientific method, leading to the emergence of natural sciences.

The establishment of scientific societies and journals further set apart this era of science from that of the Middle Ages. The scientific societies aimed to produce new scientific knowledge instead of preserving the previous knowledge. The first of these societies, was the Academy of the Lynxes (Accademia dei Lincei) in Italy, where the members had scheduled meetings to share their work and ideas, followed by the Royal Society of London, which was established in 1660. In 1665, the secretary of the Royal Society of London, Henry Oldenburg published what is described as the “first recognisable” scientific journal, the Philosophical Transactions.

Natural sciences can now be divided into two main branches: life sciences (biology) and physical sciences (to include physics, chemistry, astronomy and Earth science). Chemistry, although one of the physical sciences, can be seen to bridge the gap between the biological and the physical, as a central science.

In terms of modern scientific disciplines, however, biology and chemistry have become distinct branches of science, each encompassing a number of sub-disciplines, despite their common ancestry in the natural sciences. In the 17th century, Robert Boyle is credited to have made a distinction between chemistry and its protoscience, alchemy in his book The Sceptical Chymist. What set apart chemistry from alchemy, was that chemists made use of scientific method. The word chemistry, is also derived from alchemy, which has been traced to have both Greek and Arabic origins, to mean “cast together” and “Egyptian art” or "black art", respectively. The definition of chemistry has continued to evolve with the discipline, and modern chemistry can now be defined as the study of the “composition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo." Before the development of biology as a separate field, the study of animals and plants came under natural history and natural philosophy. Similarly, early ideas that are still prevalent in modern chemistry came from natural philosophers such as Aristotle. In the 19th century, biology became a separate entity following vast advancements in the study of the subject such as the development of the microscope and cell theory. Biology as a modern scientific discipline is described as the study of “life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution.”

Evidence-based practice in interdisciplinary healthcare
Evidence-based practice

Evidence-based practice in medicine focuses on using the best research evidence that is available, along with considering clinical expertise as well as the individual patient, in delivering patient care The term evidence-based medicine was first introduced in 1991 and is defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients”. The term evidence-based medicine then evolved into evidence-based practice, in order to emphasise the need to make use of medical evidence in actual clinical practice. In 2005, the “Sicily statement on evidence-based practice” was published which defined evidence-based practice as requiring that “decisions about health care are based on the best available, current, valid and relevant evidence. These decisions should be made by those receiving care, informed by the tact and explicit knowledge of those providing care, within the context of available resources.

Interdisciplinary healthcare

Interdisciplinary teams in healthcare are those comprising of a range of healthcare professionals and non-professionals from different backgrounds, working together to deliver high quality patient care. In complex patient problems, multiple disciplines are required to share information with each other, and studies show that when teams of people from different disciplines work together, they can provide better patient care outcomes. Interdisciplinary approaches in healthcare can lead to more effective services and improved problem-solving capability.

It has been suggested that we can bring together the existing knowledge from management and health, to better understand how to collaborate between professions. In business management it is known that as the number of people in the team increase, more specialised teams need to be created to make efficient use of skills and people. Each team is then led by a different manage who is focused on their own team rather than the organisation as a whole. This leads to issues involving “duplication of effort, lack of synergy and missed opportunities.” There is the idea of a “silo”, or a department, in which information is freely shared within that silo, but not with others. This means that different departments will make decisions based only on the information that is available to them, which may not provide the complete picture. Healthcare professionals often find themselves working in “uniprofessional silos”, which means that sharing information between professions is difficult.

Conflict in generation and use of evidence

In using an interdisciplinary approach, there is often conflict in how evidence is used in different disciplines, to generate guidelines for the best evidence-based practice and how these guidelines are adopted.

The Institute of Medicine emphasises the need for evidence, and for this information to be used to provide guidance on how to translate evidence into practice, how best to deliver interdisciplinary education, as well as to guide practice itself. Evidence in healthcare can be provided by evidence synthesisers, such as the Cochrane Collaboration who use a number of research studies to generate systematic reviews. Information from systematic reviews can then be used, for example, by the US Preventive Services Task force, in preventive services and to develop guidelines, however, they do not focus on interdisciplinary evidence.

The Council for Training in Evidence-Based Behavioral Practice (EBBP) was set up to support collaboration across health disciplines, and includes experts from medicine, nursing psychology, social work, public health and library sciences. The inclusion of both scientists and non-scientists adds the dimension of being trans-disciplinary. The EBBP model was developed after a review of existing evidence-based models from different disciplines. It includes primary researchers who provide the evidence in the first place; people who conduct systematic reviews to synthesise evidence for practice; and people who use the systematic reviews to make recommendations; stating that clinical decisions need to be made based on the best available evidence.

Truth in Geography
Geography has been well-established as a discipline since the 19th century, when it began to be taught as a discipline in universities throughout Europe. It is now taught as part of the curriculum in secondary education across the world and the importance of studying geography at this level is widely recognised. However there continues to be disagreement surrounding the precise content that should be taught, as well as the method of teaching in geography.

Regarding the content to be taught, Hirsch presents the idea of “core” knowledge – the knowledge that is required in order for us to achieve “cultural literacy”, in which people from different cultural groups are able to come together to discuss common issues. In terms of teaching, it is important to look at the epistemology of geography and consider how different epistemological approaches can impact learning. Racine and Bailly emphasised that “the need for an epistemological base is central to geography.” Different approaches to knowledge and truth can lead to different ways of thinking and learning in geography. In the study of a discipline there is a responsibility to truth, and this can be compromised if there is a lack of clarity over the meaning of "truth", or the scientific method with which it is produced.

“Logical positivism” is the term used to describe the epistemology of geography. The term arose from the Vienna Circle, a group of social scientists and philosophers who believed that they could make use of the scientific method that already existed in the traditional sciences and apply it to social issues and behaviour. Positivism suggests that social research should be centred around facts and truths which can be observed, and that the collection of data should be done through common methods of observations and theories to be tested. Absolutism can be defined in reference to positivism, as the idea that there is knowledge and truth that is “external and universal”. However there is often criticism from the humanist and structuralist perspective, that this kind of objective truth does not include the consideration of the lived human experience and therefore cannot offer the same level of human understanding that is needed in geography. Morrill states the need to improve education in both physical and human geography, as well as in other disciplines, to combat the humanist and structuralist critiques. For example, improving on mathematical literacy can help to understand the limitations of statistical models and the consequences of poor research design.

In contrast, relativism or social constructivism, uses the idea that knowledge and truth are "constructed" and "relative". Social realism has been presented as an alternative to both; as a sociological approach which recognises the objective, external character of knowledge, but at the same time does not take this externality for granted. It recognises the social and historical factors involved and "reconciles the objectivity of knowledge with its sociality." Isnard agreed that geographical space is a social product, and wished to provide a geographical viewpoint which is both scientific and social, describing the meaning of "social" as the "survival of our species through management of its space."

Power in Scientific Research and Policy Making
Contemporary scientific research requires funding, but there are economic constraints on this funding, which leads to competition for economic resources, as well as human resources and the attention of the public. Therefore, there often needs to be a “rationale” or argument for why particular scientific research should warrant spending. Since the beginning of the scientific revolution, people have discussed the practical impact of knowledge on social, political, technical and economic matters. This brings into question the “usefulness of science”, and why some research is deemed important whilst others are deemed not useful.

According to the British Chemist and Nobel Prize laureate, Harold Kroto, there are many theories, but only a few that are true. There are “scientific” theories which are considered to be “true” or “facts” if we have used to experiments to see that they work and we understand why. There are also theories which are “un-scientific” because they did not yield the same experimental results.

Scientific policy
Policymakers may make use of only the partial and incomplete knowledge which is available to them. Whether this is by accident or by strategic design, Grundmann and Stehr suggest that policies are “never based on a comprehensive knowledge base.” Pielke and Sarewitz have argued that it is possible for politicians to choose the research results which best support their political interests, especially where there is an “excess of objectivity”; when there is a large amount of varying research findings, as these can be used to support a wide range of policies. This is emphasised by Collingridge and Reeve who stated that there are situations where there is already a policy consensus before research is even carried out; the research only legitimises the predefined policy. Scientific research then does not provide the information needed to guide policy, but instead can policy being formulated, if one research finding cancels out another. Krasner presented the view of “ideas as hooks”, suggesting that ideas only serve to emphasise what already exists, and legitimise existing policies. However, new knowledge can be formed in the light of scientific research, and this can destabilise policy in a particular field, or change interests and opinions.

Although technical experts are also consulted when making policies, a distinction can be made between scientific research and expertise. Whilst scientific research itself is unlikely to influence policy, experts can be employed to use the information, and apply it to different contexts to influence policy. How this information is applied, and which information is applied, could vary depending on the expertise, and therefore the power lies with those who can trusted to use scientific research to provide the expert opinion.

Scientific misconduct and fraud
Scientific misconduct or fraud is a "violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behaviour in scientific research".

In scientific research, however, not all misconduct behaviours are labelled as fraud, suggesting that some types of misrepresentation of bias are acceptable. The narrow definition of fraud can be seen to benefit certain groups more than others ; since some situations are characterised as fraud whilst others are not, the social definition being utilised is the one that is convenient to those in power in science. This can relate to the sponsors of scientific research or to the community itself, and Brian Martin presents the idea of a "political scientific elite" - a relatively small number of scientists and bureaucrats who make decisions about research. They have a dominant influence on the priorities within science, working with others in similar positions within government and industry, but are also interested in maintaining the autonomy of science.