The Crastina “Science and Trust” Microessay Competition 2020: Winners

The Winners of the Crastina “Science & Trust” Microessay Competition 2020

We in The Crastina Crew are delighted to announce that The Crastina “Science and Trust” Microessay Competition 2020 has been completed and we are now ready to announce THE WINNERS across the two different categories: a public vote for the “People’s Writer”, and a jury selection.

Category 1: Vox populi – the voice of the people!

Following a intensive week of voting, we received 251 votes total and we are delighted to publicly announce the names of the “Writers of the People” :

First place

Prayan Pokharel

“Indeed, the main foundation of humanity relies on understading the natural world. The global pandemic, COVID-19, is a lively example. Scientific knowledge belongs to society. This era has witnessed many scientific revolutions in the realm of communication, environment, health, and genomics. Trust in science differs depending on the society’s educational, social, economic, political, religious and historical factors. In a society, people exist who argue not to trust science because scientists change their minds; actually, it is not about changing minds; it is about evolving knowledge with new evidence. Therefore, we need to understand that the research is progressive, and whatever it is now at a given moment will itself be debatable later on. For an example, it is surprisingly fast on the development of vaccines against coronavirus. We will never progress if we trust on everything. However, on scientific matters, society should trust science.”

Show entry

Second place

Emilia Pasik

“In history there are many examples of errors, that were spread around as facts. For over 100 years people believed that a substance called phlogiston was responsible for combustion. It was basically common knowledge, however now we do realise no such substance exists. Incidents like this may make one believe that trusting science is pointless. After all, scientists are only human and it is only natural for them be mistaken.

The most amazing thing about scientific research is that, no matter what a person might be studying, there always will be someone to check it. No matter if they are driven by the desire to be famous for the new discovery or passion for the subject. Over the course of hundreds years science world developed mechanisms to defend itself from errors. Science will to steer itself to the right path, thanks to being based on logical explanations, calculations and experiments.”

Show entry

Third place

Chinmaya KV

“Yes, society should trust in science because science will remove all the illusions and bring the actual facts in front of everyone. It helps in extending the boundaries of knowledge.

The techniques from one discipline now routinely are applied to other disciplines because even if one should not have a scientific background, they really should have minimum understanding in science since we live in a highly technical society. Science helps the common public to understand how right decisions are being made by the government or people around them. For example if someone talks about pollution or climate change, how do you judge whether these things are significant or not? Science and science communication does help people to clasps with these problems instead of just talking somebody's word for it.

The reasons for disagreement with science will not survive unless we must educate ourselves on the scientifically established structure.”

Show entry

Category 2: The Jury’s Grand Prize

The jury has evaluated all entries based on their originality, clarity and strength of arguments and has decided to award:

First place

Matthew H Bernard

“To question if we should trust in science

is to ask for compliance in science.

Compliance implies fact tried, so we might deny defined signs or acquire lies as if they were ties that bind, and prize guise or demonize “why”

to permit defiance to antagonize and

div ide.

But if objectivity in science hides, what then of arts and science is this rerereredundancy.

Let alone, art and its subjectivity free to feel, seem, mean, differently so that we can convene and reconvene as community.

Is it wise, then, in these trying times, to rationalize non-compliance in science while we chastise ally, let progress die.

So let’s theorize, for a while, if nothing else, that in dire times, a trust in science is obligatory alliance, to art a reply

that trust in science is ground to the flight, symbol in rite, dream at night, and truce after fight.”

Show entry

Second place

Silke Kramprich

“It sucks. It is the hard way. It takes much more time and energy than taking the shortcut and believing in simple ‘truths’ based on other concepts, beliefs, or sources.

It challenges society to understand how science works, and thus to acquire a level of scientific literacy that empowers the people to recognize fake facts and questionable science. And it challenges scientists to step out of the Ivory tower and communicate in a way that is easily accessible and understandable to as many citizens as possible.

But these efforts pay off.

Responsible science often delivers only preliminary truths. But these truths are the best we have, and I trust science to update them whenever new knowledge calls for it.

Therefore, the society I want to live in cannot not trust science.”

Show entry

Third place

Mackenzie Gibbons

“Society should not be asked to trust science. Science should not be about trust but about persuasion, tell me why your argument is better than another and I will not relent until I am convinced based on the strength of the methods and evidence of the claim. We should not ask society to trust science as a result either, science is a tool in which to raise the collective conscientiousness of those who choose to participate, participation in science must be extended as wide as possible. Those, not in science are sometimes the most important scientists, contributing ideas and direction, to ask them to trust science is to ask them not to question itself. Science is about disagreement as much as it is about consensus. Let us not encourage trust in science but encourage open thought and let us in science not be dismissive of those who do not agree.”

Show entry

The Science & Trust live discussion

We are excited to inform you that Crastina has scheduled a live interactive panel discussion session on Science & Trust to take place Friday, December 11th at 4pm CET that will broadcast on Crastina’s Facebook page. The panel will be constituted by the members of the jury for the Crastina Science & Trust Microessay Competition. The winners and runners-up of the Crastina Microessay Competition are also eligible to participate as members of the panel. Winners will be informed as soon as possible. We have been very impressed by the high quality of all entries, and therefore we believe that your insight on this topic would greatly enhance the value of the discussion.

All other participants, Crastina’s followers and anyone else interested in Science & Trust are also invited to join on the day. Participants will be given the opportunity to engage with discussion in a Q&A format, and we strongly encourage all authors from the entries to do so. If you wish to join the discussion on Zoom, do sign up here and we will send you the link. Please also invite your friends and colleagues to join!

Please like our Facebook page!

Useful and fun content served every week, Monday to Friday, by our curator together with the Crew.

#PracticalMonday, #InfluencerTuesday, #OpinionWednesday, #OpportunityThursday, #TGIF