Scientists should seek to confirm theories or hypotheses rather than to refute them.

Scientists should seek to confirm theories or hypotheses rather than to refute them.

Science is an understanding of nature and some utilize this understanding for the manipulation of science for the greater good. Scientists develop hypotheses in order to apply their understanding of knowledge for a further understanding of science. In most cases, it is beneficial and efficient use of time to help a fellow scientist confirm their theories instead of refuting them. It will help gain confidence and respect the field. However there are times when refuting a theory is best.

First consider a situation in which scientists would confirm the theory than to refute it. In the 1920s, Marie Curie and her husband were very diligent scientists who discovered the importance of radioactivity and how it worked. They conducted many tests and confirmed prior experiments by other scientists. Their discovery of radioactivity is very beneficial and people supported them since it could help cure disease. Another example, is scientific research done by Gregoor Mendel has earned him the title of "father of genetics". He conducted multiple experiments with pea plants and traced the pattern of heredity. Mendel has established important laws of genetics that are still used today. For example, the Law of Independent assortment and Law of Segregation have been widely accepted in the scientific community because of the widespread scientific evidence that is present in microscopy of cells undergoing meiosis. Likewise, Watson and Crick were trying to decipher the importance of DNA and in the process deciphered the structure and the interactions of the various nucleotides. Their discovery was also widely accepted because it was the missing piece of the puzzle in the study of genetics. Hence it is evident that when a scientific theory or finding is going to further the understanding of the field then fellow scientists and the public should confirm and embrace the theory. 

On the other hand, only trying to confirm theories could actually lead to more problems and even danger. In the past their was a company that marketed a drug called thalidomide to pregnant females that would help reduce nausea. The drug did help to reduce nausea but their were actually two forms of the drug that were created during its synthesis, one that was safe and reduced nausea and another that reduced nausea but also caused birth defects in unborn fetuses. If scientists only spent time confirming that this drug helped to reduce nausea, they would prove that it does but this would do nothing about the other side effect for one of the forms that included birth defects. Another example, is that of stem cells in today's modern society. Since the 1990s embryonic stem cells were the primary modes of research to generate potential cures for various diseases. However, under the Bush Administration and prior administrations, ES cell research was often opposed because of the controversy for taking away lives in acquiring the stem cells. Hence from 2000- 2004 stem cell funding by the federal government was slashed due to the controversy of the research. As a result, scientific research that causes harm to the human race or any other living creature should be refuted to save lives and values in society.

It is that understanding of nature and the quest for the greater good that drives science. A balance must be found for when scientists should seek to confirm theories and hypotheses and when they should try to refute them. If a certain idea or theory could potentially lead to danger and risk of life, then scientists must try to refute the claim in order to maintain the safety of a society. If ideas are harmless and lead to only good things then they should help try to confirm them as no harm can come and overall utility is maximized. It is also through attempting confirmation that confirmation is achieved and science is furthered and so is our understanding of nature surrounding us.