Example collocations logo

Scientific in sentence

2039 examples of Scientific in a sentence

Likewise, Quest University in Canada encourages students to bring both scientific and humanistic knowledge to bear on today’s most pressing problems.
No one has expressed that mission better than Benjamin Franklin, a man of letters and a scientific innovator, who defined education as the quest for “true merit.”
The most important result of the Johannesburg Summit should be a recognition that more scientific research and much more global cooperation is needed.
Even if the summit produces few specific results, it can make a difference if three demands are made of the summiteers:we should insist that the world's politicians recognize the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the major environmental perils humanity faces;we should press these leaders to invest more public money in basic environmental research and in the development of new technologies to address environmental risks.
To the scientific community, the evidence on climate change has, of course, been overwhelming for more than a decade and a half.
I participated in the second assessment of the scientific evidence conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which perhaps made one critical mistake: it underestimated the pace at which global warming was occurring.
With the collapse of the Soviet communist regime, the US continues to enjoy a dominant role in space exploration for peaceful and scientific development.
Every time a new, powerful scientific formulation appears, it must go through a period of abusive application.
In the UK, where the largest service exports are in what trade specialists describe as “professional, scientific, and technical services,” this implies the need to train, attract, and retain the world’s best experts.
And, as in the case of airlines, these inputs – rules, standards, certifications, infrastructure, schools and training centers, scientific labs, security services, among others – are deeply complementary to the ones that can be procured in markets.
Thanks to the scientific revolution that began in the seventeenth century, humans today enjoy instant communication, rapid transportation, a rich and diverse diet, and effective prevention and treatment for once-fatal illnesses.
But the scientific enterprise is under threat from both external and internal forces.
Now the scientific community must use its capacity for self-correction – based on new information, discoveries, experiences, and ideas (the stuff of scientific progress for centuries) – to address these threats.
A major hindrance to scientific progress is the increasing scarcity of research funding – a trend that has been exacerbated by the global economic crisis.
Uncertain funding prospects not only discourage scientists from pursuing risky or undirected lines of research that could lead to crucial discoveries; they also make it more difficult to recruit the best and brightest for scientific careers, especially given the extensive training and specialization that such careers require.
Furthermore, leaders from across the political spectrum are questioning scientifically-established principles – such as anthropogenic climate change, evolution, and the benefits of vaccination – with no scientific basis.
But the field’s credibility is also being undermined from within, by the growing prevalence of scientific misconduct – reflected in a recent spate of retracted scientific publications – and an increasingly unbalanced scientific workforce that faces perverse incentives.
Moreover, this winner-take-all system fails to account for the fact that scientific work is largely carried out by research teams rather than individuals.
As a result, the scientific workforce is beginning to resemble a pyramid scheme: unfair, inefficient, and unsustainable.
This threatens to create a vicious cycle in which misconduct and sloppy research are rewarded, undermining both the scientific process and its credibility.
But addressing them requires a prudent strategy that accounts for the structural fragility of the scientific enterprise, in which scientists must complete extensive training, regulation can easily stifle creativity, and funding limitations can substantially delay progress.
Because of this fragility, few countries have been able to establish highly productive scientific enterprises, even though scientific innovation and technological breakthroughs are crucial to a country’s productivity, economic growth, and influence.
Given the challenges implicit in establishing and maintaining a robust scientific sector, reform efforts must be undertaken carefully.
And structural reforms aimed at balancing the scientific workforce and stabilizing funding are crucial.
For example, it would not be difficult to win support for improving education in the ethical aspects of scientific research.
More data are needed to understand workforce imbalances, the peer review system, and how the economics of the scientific enterprise influence scientists’ behavior.
Applying the scientific method to the problems of science could be scientists’ best hope for regaining public confidence and reinvigorating the quest for transformative discoveries.
For years, Tuskegee has been a byword for ethical abuses in scientific research – to the extent that President Bill Clinton apologized to its surviving “subjects.”
The team were shocked that Pfizer continued the so-called scientific work in the middle of hell.”
I examined the 45 clinical research findings that had received the greatest recognition in the scientific world, as documented by the number of times other scientists had cited them over the last 15 years.
BackNext