Science is done in an artificial environment

I would like to recall a Physics Today "Reference Frame" column from a number of years ago by distinguished particle physicist, Helen Quinn (2009), "What is Science?"  This is a particularly philosophical piece, which among other things introduces the term "scientific metaphysics" to deal with extrapolations of scientific theory and speculation into regimes that are not, in principle, empirically testable, such as the" many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory.

However, another part of the article calls my attention today.  I would like to quote an entire paragraph:

Science is done in an artificial environment, where its logic can develop without a need for immediate action.  That unnatural environment allows science to yield powerful and unexpected new options for eventual action.  It is important to note, however, that some applications of science, such as medicine, cannot wait until all questions are resolved.  Medical practice can be based on the best available scientific knowledge and theory, but it must often apply them in untested regimes.  Much of the public's feeling that science is always changing its conclusions comes from changes in medical advice that occur when new scientific knowledge overrides the previously best guesses of medical practice.

I've long agreed that "Science is done in an artificial environment," and I have gravitated towards applied science, partly as a result of discomfort with the ivory tower nature of basic research.  The aspect of science that Quinn describes above is one that has not been emphasized much by others, in my experience.  However, I think it is important for both scientists and non-scientists to understand this point, and Quinn puts it more eloquently than I could have.

I would only disagree with the gist of the final sentence.  In medicine, much of the flip-flopping conclusions that Quinn speaks of are due to the prevalence of studies based on observational, not experimental, data.  Lacking any attribution to causality, such studies really do give the impression of changing conclusions, which is detrimental to both scientists and non-scientists alike.

Reference

Helen Quinn, 2009:  What is Science?  Physics Today, 62 (7):  8-9.