India: A Superpower in the Making?

India is a fascinating land with vivid history and heritage. Its culture is one of the oldest known to humanity.  India is a place rich in customs, traditions, values and beliefs where people preach and practice different religions, speak various languages and yet it is the largest successful democracy in the world. It sets an example by projecting a country so diverse and yet so unified. The world sees India as the land of gods, the origin of yoga, famous for temples and spiritual enlightenment along with the food, the festivals, jewelry, train travels, slums, cultural dance and Bollywood celebrities. It seems counterintuitive that a nation that is identified as “A poor country with rich culture,” can be the fastest growing economy in the world, leading in the fields of Information Technology, Agriculture, Infrastructure, Education etc and can be seen as the most prominent superpower of the future.

Superpower nation possesses the ability to dominate and influence global affairs/events and project its power on a global scale. However, in-order to be a superpower the nation is obliged to fit certain criteria. Firstly, it must have a strong and stable political system. Secondly, it must be a consistently growing economy and last but not the least, it should be able to manage its population providing them with diverse opportunities, world class facilities, producing efficient and highly trained manpower. It must also have high level of technical expertise, cultural unity, along with exceptional military and armed forces. Ever since the disintegration of the soviet union, America has been the only country fulfilling these criteria’s and hence influencing the world by utilizing its superpower stature. However, with the changing economies, political system and foreign relations, more and more countries are becoming powerful and have started influencing the international affairs. Thus, with the rise of different countries there has been rise in the speculation of the next projected superpower nation.

Based upon the economic potential, market size, military strength and influence in science, innovation and global affairs; China, The European Union, India and Russia are the most speculated contenders for supremacy. But from this list the country that has managed to create a turmoil among the critics is India. India surely has come by a surprise to everyone by joining the race of the fastest growing economies of the world after just 60 years of independence. It is even ready to outpace Chinese economy in the preceding years. Tim Worstall in a Forbes article, “India to be the world’s fastest growing economy: keeping it going will be the difficult trick” quoted, “India is forecast to become the fastest growing large economy in the world, surpassing that of China. Figures to be released by the Central Statistics Office are expected to confirm the country grew by 7.3 % from October to December, while China grew 6.8% in the same period.” Economic Survey 2016, suggested that India is expected to accelerate to 8-10% in terms of growth-rate in next 2-5 years. Anthony Fensom in, “China, India To Lead World By 2050,” highlighted that, “Both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank expect India to overtake China as the world’s fastest growing major economy in 2016.” Thus there is no doubt India will be a leading economy in the future and is a strong contender for Superpower.

Information Technology has played a major role in India’s Economy and GDP growth. It has increased its contribution to the GDP from 1.2% in 1998 to 7.5% in 2012. The country is home to more than 8000 digital firms; Tata, Infosys, Wipro, Oracle are few examples of those. India is a hot spot for new startups and is currently home to more than 4000 startup companies. It is redefining India’s innovation and growth capabilities. India has high skilled and trained technical manpower and is attracting tech-entrepreneurs by offering high quality, reliable and cost-effective services and that too at a steady rate. According to statistics, the IT industry in India has created 3 million direct employment opportunities in 2012/13. “India has become the worlds largest sourcing destination in the IT industry, accounting for approximately 67 per cent of the US$ 124-130 billion market” reported in Indian Brand Equity Foundation article. The article also stated that “The sector is also expected to triple its current annual revenue to reach US$ 350 billion by FY 2025.” The IT sector in India is also attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). As per the data released by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), The computer software and hardware sector in India attracted cumulative Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows worth US$ 21.02 billion between April 2000 and March 2016. Thus, India has surely become the leading exporter of IT services in the world.

However, despite of having the fastest growing IT industry in the world India hasn’t been successful in providing its people with easy and affordable 24/7 digital connection.  A article published in Times of India, “World Bank says India faces stark digital divide.” reported, “India has the biggest offline population of any country,World Bank economists said at the India launch of the World Development Report 2016, Digital Dividends.” According to which nearly a billion of the population has no internet access. Vast number of people in rural India don’t know how to use a smartphone or a computer and don’t have access to it. If India wants to be a superpower it will have to eradicate this digital gap between the rural and the urban India. To solve this problem the government of India has launched many initiatives like; Digital India Program which aims to provide the government services to people using IT, Digital literacy program which aims to train Indians  over the next three years to empower them with digital knowledge, US and India have also collaborated and launched the ‘Digital India Initiative’ in-order to digitalize India. The Railways of India got a digital push with the inclusion of bar-coded tickets, GPS systems, wifi facilities etc. The cities are transforming into smart cities because of such initiatives and the villages are catching up as well. This definitely increases the chances of India in becoming the superpower.

Another important sector contributing majorly in Indian Economy is Agriculture. Agriculture along with fisheries and forestry, is one of the largest contributors to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounting for 13.7%. It is also a large and mostly the only source of income in majority of Indian villages.  According to IBEF, “In India over 58 per cent of the rural households depend on agriculture as their principal means of livelihood.” India is the largest exporter of fruits, vegetables and species. The Green Revolution made India the second largest producer of wheat, rice, sugarcane, cotton, groundnuts and the largest producer of milk, jute and pulses. As per a USDA report ,”India became the world’s seventh-largest exporter of agricultural products in 2013, surpassing Australia with exports climbing from just over $5 billion in 2003 to a record of more than $39 billion in 2013.” Even though agriculture plays such a crucial part in Indian economy, the farmers that cultivate agriculture don’t get enough credit and enough money to live a decent life and hence each day more and more farmers are opting out of farming and moving to cities. Rukmini Shrinivasan in, “Farmer population falls by 9 million in 10 years” highlights that, “There are now nearly 9 million fewer farmers than there were in 2001, the first time in four decades that the absolute number of cultivators has fallen.” If this trend continues then there are great chances of slow down of the Indian economy and it might never be a superpower.

Scarcity of water, Infertile land and lack of infrastructure in the agricultural sector, illiteracy, lack of awareness of the development in the field of agriculture, lack of transparency among the government agriculture officers and the farmers, inadequate finances and government policies, poor socio-economic background of farmers, soil erosion, lack of adequate storage facilities are the reasons why farmers are opting out of farming. The problems are so severe that farmers are opting suicide. Farmer suicides have occurred at a rate of 1.4 to 1.8 per 100,000 total population, over a 10-year period since 2005. This can be a serious concern for India because agriculture is the backbone of the Indian economy. If the economy falls then the whole growth of the whole country is doomed. To stop this, the Indian government has launched various programs for the benefit and betterment of the farmers. The government announced 70% Cut in Monsanto’s Royalties, which will cut Monsato’s monopoly of cotton seeds. The Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana launched in 2015 will focus on Micro-irrigation projects and end-to-end irrigation solutions. The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna (Crop Insurance for Farmers) aims to give 50% crop insurance to farmers. The government also launched Soil Health Card in 2015 which carry crop-wise recommendations of nutrients and fertilizers required for the individual farms to help farmers to improve productivity through proper use of inputs. These programs will help lower the ratio of farmer suicides in the coming years and India might succeed in saving its agriculture and its economy.

Corruption is one of the severe problems India has been facing. As per the World Corruption Audit conducted in 2015, India ranked 65th out of the 150 democratic nations. Almost every person in India has been asked to pay the bribe at-least once in their lifetime. According to the Indian Corruption Study 2005, “Common citizens of the country pay a bribe of Rs. 21,068 crores while availing one or more of the eleven public services in a year.” Lack of transparency in the public sector, poor tax regulation and licensing policies can be considered the root causes of corruption in India. Bribing a public servant to get the work done quickly has been a common ritual there and Indians have somewhat gotten used to it. However, an Anti-corruption campaign led by Anna Hazare in 2011 has been an eyeopener for both the government and the citizens. Ten’s of thousands of citizens joined the movement forcing the government to pass a new Anti-Corruption bill (Lokpal Bill) in the Parliament. In 2015, to fight against corruption; The Prime Minister of India took a drastic step and announced the demonetization of the rupee to control tax invasion and eradicate black money from the country. Such movement proves that efforts made in the present can help India to be the superpower in the future.

Managing its 1.2 billion population is another major concern for India. Growing population is considered the biggest hindrance in a country’s growth and India is the second most populous country in the world after china. To be a superpower, the nation should be able to manage its man power and resources and distribute them evenly. But, because of the enormous population, it has been tough for India to maintain the balance. However, due to various population control campaigns and increase in the number of educated people, a slight decline in the growth rate  has been observed. Rema Nagrajan in her article, “The Myth of India’s population explosion,” stated “India’s total fertility rate — a measure of the number of children born to a woman during her lifetime — was down from 5.9 in 1951 to 2.3 in 2011.” If India successes in stabilizing its population then it has good chances of being the superpower.

India is recognized all over the world for producing world renowned scientists, engineers, doctors, writers and philosophers. Indian’s are leading in the field of science and innovation. However, India hasn’t been able to provide best educational facilities to its students. India has very few world renowned institutions and because of the large population, there is a great competition to get into these institutions and the fees of such institutions are also quite hefty. Due to which large number of Indian students chose abroad over India for gaining higher education and technical expertise and due to which India lose its talented and ambitious population. Dhanya Thomas in his article, “Brain drain: Boon for developed countries, but bane for India” reported, “A recent study conducted by Indian Institute of Management- Bangalore (IIM-B) shows that the students going for higher studies abroad has increased by 256% in the last 10 years. When 53,000 Indian students went abroad for higher studies in 2000, the figure shot up to 1.9 lakh in 2010.” However this trend of brain drain is slowly changing and the new trend of reverse brain drain has begun. India is one of the first countries to observe reverse brain drain where people of the developed countries move to the less developed countries. This mainly depends on the country’s development and policies developed to attract foreign immigrants. Indian economy and its development in Information Technology and Infrastructure has lured a lot of its population back into the country and along with that is also attracting foreign immigrants. The Indian government has launched programs to fasten the process of reverse brain drain. Skill India Initiative is one of such initiatives launched by Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi; which aims at training 400 million citizens by 2022 that would enable them to find jobs. India and Australia have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to boost partnerships between the two countries in the fields of higher education and research, including technical and professional education, schools, vocational education and training. Strengthening its education system and providing its citizens with educational facilities and equal opportunities can help India become a superpower.

India has managed to become the pioneer in the fields of Information Technology, Agriculture and Education and has managed to significantly reduce corruption and poverty. The progress made by India is tremendous. It already has a strong military, armed forces and nuclear weapons and is constantly developing. It is the largest exporter of goods in the world. India is collaborating with foreign countries and making advances in space and technology as well. It has excellent and skilled manpower. India also has strong government and political system and it is observed by the programs launched by the government to develop India and the pace at which India is developing. Moreover, India also maintains good relations with other countries, has strong foreign policies and stands a strong position in International affairs. If India continues its global presence and participation then it might soon become a member of the United Nations in the coming years. From evidences, it can be observed that India possesses immense amount of potential and caliber to be the superpower.

However, if India really wants to be a superpower, it will have to start with focusing on establishing regional and cultural peace within the country, establishing peace with its neighboring countries and enhancing its trade policies. India will also have to bring an end to female foeticide, to maintain gender ratio. India will also have to develop its healthcare sector and provide its citizens with affordable medicare and health insurances. It will have to put a control on population explosion before it overtakes china. It should also take the benefit of the declining Chinese economy and quickly overtake as the biggest economy in the world. It should put an end to communal violence and religious disputes. In the coming years India should be able to provide its citizens with basic necessities, equal and diverse opportunities, and try reduce the unemployment rate.

The World Wars and many other Cultural, Demographic and Geographic conditions have crumbled the superpower nations of the past and continues to crumble the current contenders. It’s difficult for countries to get back on their knees or fight against their problems. The  U.S. has never observed massive industrial destruction or civilian casualties unlike Europe or Asia. Post War it has been able to build up a strong industrial and technological infrastructure, advanced military strength which is the strongest in the world and has managed to retain it since. Other countries have a great potential in being the superpower but their problems are way more drastic and impossible to overcome. However, over time India has constantly proved that nothing is impossible if the people and the government of the nation unite and work together. Together they can overcome challenges and eradicate the problems.

To conclude, India can be a Superpower if it utilizes its man force and makes a unified effort with the government to bring the change.

Works Cited

Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 06 Dec. 2016.

Pti. “India’s Growth Rate to Accelerate to 8-10% in 2-5 Years: CEA Arvind Subramanian.” The Economic Times. N.p., 26 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Dec. 2016.

Fensom, Anthony. “China, India To Lead World By 2050, Says PwC.” The Diplomat. The Diplomat, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 06 Dec. 2016.

“Poverty & Equity.” Poverty & Equity Data | India | The World Bank. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Media, Triami. “Historic Inflation India – CPI Inflation.” Historic Inflation India – Historic CPI Inflation India. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

President, BCG Senior Vice. “Direct/indirect Employment IT Industry India 2008-2016 | Statistic.” Statista. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

“Brand India.” IT Industry in India, Indian Information Technology, ITeS Sector, Services. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

“World Bank Says India Faces Stark Digital Divide – Times of India.” The Times of India. Business, 10 May 2016. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

“Superpower.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

“Economy of India.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

August 29, 2014 International Agricultural Trade Reports. “India’s Agricultural Exports Climb to Record High.” India’s Agricultural Exports Climb to Record High | USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

“Farmer Population Falls by 9 Million in 10 Years – Times of India.” The Times of India. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

“Agricultural Problems Faced by the Farmers of India.” Knowledge Tank. N.p., 16 May 2016. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Thomas, Dhanya. “Brain Drain: Boon for Developed Countries, but Bane for India.” Find- Study Abroad Entrance Exam, Courses, Scholarships, News, Articles. N.p., 29 Apr. 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

@username. “Essay Writing — Can India Become a Super Power.” Bank Exams. N.p., 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

“Brand India.” , Indian Education System, Industry. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

The Truth Can Be Skewed

Scientific studies allow science to expand its knowledge, from finding connections between two seemingly different entities to testing and explaining phenomena that the world doesn’t quite understand yet. With the correct use of these scientific studies, scientists can achieve feats that would have been deemed impossible without the newly found knowledge: More cures can be found, larger realizations and trends can be identified, and even more knowledge of a field can potentially make growths as even more studies can elaborate. However, scientific studies’ massive influence is a double-edged sword. The “truthful” studies that we believe because they are backed by scientific research may be completely wrong. However, studies are still fallible and studies that push false claims can skew the truth and push an agenda. This trend is completely detrimental to the science community and the people.

As one might expect, scientific studies have a very rigid system that details what studies must accomplish to make a claim. For a scientific study to prove a claim (scientifically known as a hypothesis), the study must prove that the hypothesis must have an undeniable relationship with the data that is collected. To prove the hypothesis, the scientists first form what is known as a null hypothesis, which assumes the that there is no correlation between the two. For example, if the hypothesis is that a newly made drug increases dopamine levels, the null hypothesis would be that the drug did not exhibit any change in dopamine levels. The scientists then attempt to prove the actual hypothesis by rejecting the null hypothesis.

The data, which is found by the carefully thought-out tests and conditions set in place by researchers, is then analyzed to see if the data was statistically significant enough to reject the null hypothesis. This test is essentially finding whether the data was gotten due to random chance or if the claim is the reason behind the data. The researchers then use many different methods to calculate the probability of how likely the data that was given could have shown up, also known as the p-value. To say something was statistically significant, the probability must be lower than 5 percent. This magic number of 5 percent is key, as any study that produces a p-value lower than 5 percent is deemed to be valid. As the probability of the null hypothesis being true statistically improbable and rejected, the scientist can then conclude that the actual hypothesis true. Any p-value that is 5 percent or higher cannot reject the null hypothesis and cannot prove the claim that the study was trying to make, which forces the scientist to either retry the study or change the claim altogether.

Intentional errors have become a major issue as the scientific studies, which people take at face value, become either misleading or entirely untrue and flood the scientific journals. Studies that affect the percentage of published claims undergo effects such as publication bias and the file-drawer effect. The author Megan L. Head, in the article “The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science,” defines publication bias as, “the phenomenon in which studies with positive results are more likely to be published than studies with negative results.” The file-drawer effect is the tendency for scientists to refrain from publishing negative studies as due to the lack of money. These effects are very detrimental as there is a noticeable underrepresentation of negative published studies. In “The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results,” Robert Rosenthal describes this effect by saying, “the extreme view of the ‘file drawer problem’ is that journals are filled with the 5% of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers are filled with the 95% of the studies that show nonsignificant results.” This is a direct result of scientists attempting to push studies that innately get more attention, as positive-resulting, intriguing studies will be more popular than negative-resulting studies.

However, the bias can be even more direct with something known as p-hacking. The essential part of a study is primarily based on the comparison of the p-value to find something that is statistically probable. So through p-hacking, scientists can attempt to alter the way they compute the p-value with any given data. In the web article “Is Science Broken?” author Christie Aschwanden simulated how easy it is to find something statistically significant for many different claims with the same data. In his simulation, we are to choose a category on which political party, Republican or Democratic, we want the hypothesis to support. Aschwanden then demonstrated that by choosing to keep and omit some parts of the data (such as the type of politicians that we want to consider as politicians and including recessions), the combination of different parts of the data can prove a hypothesis for both sides. Even with the same data pool, the fact that the use of p-hacking can prove completely opposite ideologies shows the massive influence that p-hacking can have.

With these massive rigid systems that scientists must undergo for their livelihood, scientists put massive amounts of value in publication. As innovation comes directly from the scientists, they are put under massive amounts of pressure for publishing. This pressure to publish has directly resulted in the overflowing publication rates that seem to have no end. Thus, a large portion of studies is only partial truths due to the many different biases they are forced to undergo through, intentionally or not. The reason why there is so much potential for bias is due to the fractured system that scientific studies are based off.

Due to the emphasis on quantity over quality for both payments and value, scientists are more inclined to not publish the full potential of what studies could have achieved. Thus, more and more faulty studies with intriguing, misleading theses start to accumulate. To combat this, replication tests are very valuable as they attempt to retest the study exactly to test the study’s validity. These tests are essentially a fail-safe, where another scientific group that is independent to the original does everything that the study did to see if it produces similar results. Erick Turner from the FDA-also known as the Food and Drug Administration- spoke about the replication tests held in 2008. The FDA retested 74 studies that proved the effectiveness of numerous FDA-registered antidepressants. From the replication tests, they found that 23 of them didn’t even have evidence of publication, which left 51 studies to examine. It was reported that 48 of those 51 studies that were left originally showed positive results, yet when the FDA concluded the replication studies they found that only 38 studies out of the original 74 had positive results, completely disproving studies that were now found to be selling ineffective antidepressants.

If such a test is so valuable to validate incorrect tests, then there should not be so many tests that people can view where the study essentially publishes false claims. Sadly, these faulty studies are unlikely to be corrected as there is no incentive within the scientific community to replicate the tests. Even though the FDA made replication tests, the company is not a good representation of the entirety of the community as the FDA is a government funded organization whose primary focus is to regulate issues such as the biased studies.  This occurrence is known as the replication crisis. To make sure that harmful products do not go to the patients and prevent the need for replication tests, organizations such as the FDA place very rigid requirements. However, regulatory associations such as the FDA are simply not enough to keep the influence of drug companies away from scientific studies.

Petter Hutt’s paper, “Untangling the Vioxx-Celebrex Controversy: A Story about Responsibility.” describes the exact process of how the FDA approves a drug.  The FDA first requires what is known as an NDA or New Drug Application. The new drug then undergoes the Investigation New Drug test, or IND test, and three phases to test safety. The IND test is used to see if the production and analyzation had “protection of the human research project, animal studies completed and analyzed, scientific merit, and qualifications of the investigator.” From the IND, the drug then undergoes Phase I, II, and III. Phase I tests the drug on one subject to check for adverse side effects, which moves on to Phase II if successful. Phase II administers the drug multiple times on a small group, which will move on to Phase III. In this phase, the drug is given to thousands of patients with many different methodologies to check for drug interactions/reactions. It is estimated that this entire process takes around 7 to 13 years before the application is finished. After the application is submitted, the FDA then makes a committee to push the new drug and either authorize the drug or stop the process there.

This very methodical authorization system should be able to sort off unsafe drugs after numerous checks. However, the unreliability of the FDA was completely exposed with the Vioxx controversy. DrugWatch, in the web article “Vioxx Recall – Merck and FDA,” discusses the painkiller Vioxx and how it was spread to many different doctors with the primary goal of giving the drug to as many patients as possible. However, in only 5 years, this seemingly harmless drug was found to more than double the risk of heart attacks and death. Eventually, in 2004, Merck recalled Vioxx after being put in the spotlight for their drug. DrugWatch described the havoc Vioxx caused, with over 38,000 deaths, as potentially, “ the worst drug disaster in history.”

The drug went through the entire rigid appeal process of the FDA and was approved in 1999. Not once did the FDA stop the drug until the symptoms the heart issues started to appear and an analyzation was made. But by the time the FDA caught on, Vioxx already damaged thousands of lives. The reason why this disaster even occurred was due to Merck manipulating the data the study had. For the Merck scientists to show that the drug was safe enough for use, they omitted the detrimental data pertaining to patients with heart complications. Otherwise, the drug could not have been released. In fact, Hutt stated that “the General Accounting Office found that of 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976-1985, about half had serious post-approval problems.”

Not only that, but this controversy also shed light on the corruption of the FDA. It was noted that Merck persuaded the FDA to remove warning labels for digestive issues with Vioxx before the drug was even approved. The FDA also ignored numerous doctors’ complaints of their patients’ hearts problem until 2002, when a study that showed the relationship between heart complications and Vioxx. When that integral piece of information came out, all the FDA did was simply add a label. The FDA had numerous chances to prevent a disaster from happening and the organization was built to do just that. However, the bias that Merck was pushing forward to validate their product slipped through, which shows even the FDA struggles to mitigate the effect of bias in scientific studies.

As noted before, the scientists’ payment is incentivized to push the claims of whatever will help their career. If the scientists could sustain themselves using the replication test, researchers would have used these replication tests. However, replications tests carry no monetary value, as they only restate what someone else has stated, so scientists avoid the very test that helps counteract faulty claims. As scientists are only human and will have the tendency to prioritize their own living at the expense of integrity, scientists would rather push a swarming number of theses for money. This phenomenon eliminates the fail-safe that is made to get rid of the faulty studies, which means that the number of studies that are fundamentally lying is going to steadily increase with little resistance.

This phenomenon is very detrimental to the future of science. In the article, “Pressure to ‘Publish or Perish’ May Discourage Innovative Research, UCLA Study Suggests,” author Phil Hampton discusses a study lead by Jacob Foster that measures the risks and innovation studies take and the implications that studies make.  Foster found in the fields of biomedicine and chemistry that more than 60% of the studies that were analyzed showed no new connections. This essentially means that innovation is slowly grinding to a halt due to the flawed system. As scientists are fixated with their publications to make a steady income, they will push whatever will gives them the safest income. Even though going with the more innovative idea may result in a breakthrough that will net massive amounts of revenue from publication, there is an even greater chance that the study will not result in a positive study, which would not be beneficial to the scientist. This risk vs reward scenario causes scientists to then make a choice on what they value more, to be put in a textbook or to eat the next day. There, the non-innovative route becomes the favored choice as scientists do not have a safety net that can warrant the risk. Thus, innovation is slowly starting to decrease. This result is one of the worst outcomes, as only innovation causes new leaps and bounds to be made from science. If innovation starting to slow down, science slows down as well.

These issues can be solved by money, so funding from organizations seem to be one of the best solutions. Money being given to the researchers which allow them to remove the restraint of income so better tests are made. However, this harmonious relationship becomes detrimental as both parties benefit too much. A claim from a scientific study is very valuable for a business. The faith people have with how rigid scientific studies are causes people to believe essentially anything a scientific study proves. Thus, companies are willing to invest a lot of money for scientific studies that positively help whatever the company is pushing. This investment would ultimately result in more money for the future. This interest itself causes a cycle that makes this issue worse. A business wants to be able to push their values to gain more money or popularity, so the businesses are more willing to pay money to inevitably reap the benefits. As the business itself pays money for the studies, scientists are more enticed to make a study that proves the business’ value for a better living, giving more and more incentive to produce more or alter claims that prove the value.

This cycle results in countless biased articles that unjustifiably prove the claim of the business that affects the public. Companies such as pharmaceuticals and sport drink companies are repeatedly found in the obvious malpractice. For example, in the study “Association of Funding And Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials,” Bodil ALs-Nielsen randomly selected 370 random drug trials to see if there was an effect on the result of the test being funded by a non-profit organization or a for-profit organization.  With only 16% of the studies recommending the drugs when it was funded by a non-profit organization and 51% of the studies when funded by a for-profit organization, it is painfully obvious to see the effect that funding sources have.

Biased studies can even be detrimental after it has been disproven. America has kick started  a newly found movement where people are against vaccination and refuse to give their children vaccinated. This movement grew in popularity when Andrew Wakefield released a study that shows the correlation between vaccines and autism. However, this study was completely biased to fit Wakefield’s claim. The study not only took very specific conditions to make the claim, Wakefield was even accused of violating ethical rules.  In the article “The Lancet Retracts Andrew Wakefield’s Article « Science-Based Medicine,”  UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel  officially stated on Jan 28, 2001, that “it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect.” Even though the original paper has been debunked repeatedly, the movement still stays strong and un-wavered. Once the headline of the audacious claim is made, the impact the study has will still remain regardless of the truth. This trend gives even more power to the biased claims.

This corruption of scientific studies must be addressed. Many scientists are aware of the situations and biases but are helpless to do anything about it. Yet, the scientific system sets a precedent that dissuades scientists from reaching their highest potential. This issue can be resolved as long as money is not the primary factor. By giving scientists a steady income, it incentivises them to work on what they deem important rather than safe and potential corruption would disappear. As a result, scientific journals would be filled with unbiased, pure information which allows science to progress in the likes where science has never seen before.

Works Cited:

Head, M. L. “The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science.” The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science. PLoS Biol, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

Aschwanden, Christie. “Science Isn’t Broken.” FiveThirtyEight. N.p., 19 Aug. 2016. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.

Rosenthal, Robert. “The File Drawer Problem And Tolerance For Null Results.” Psychological Bulletin 86.3 (1979): 638-641. PsycARTICLES. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.

Turner, Erick H. “Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy — NEJM.” New England Journal of Medicine. N.p., 17 Jan. 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.

Hampton, Phil. “Pressure to ‘publish or Perish’ May Discourage Innovative Research, UCLA Study Suggests.” UCLA Newsroom. N.p., 08 Oct. 2015. Web. 018 Nov. 2016

Nielsen, MD Bodil. “Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials.”Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials. The JAMA Network, 20 Aug. 2003. Web. 01 Dec. 2016.

Hutt, Peter Barton. “Untangling the Vioxx-Celebrex Controversy: A Story about Responsibility.”Tran, Lan. N.p., 4 May 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

“Vioxx Recall – Merck and FDA.” DrugWatch. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

Novella, Steven. “The Lancet Retracts Andrew Wakefield’s Article « Science-Based Medicine.” The Lancet Retracts Andrew Wakefield’s Article « Science-Based Medicine. N.p., 03 Feb. 2010. Web. 25 Nov. 2016.

Smartphones have been a great advancement in technology and in society. Like any other tool they help us with our daily tasks such as keeping us close to public safety officials, allowing us the ability to transfer money that helps us manage our lifestyles, and being able to check the safety of our families with a push of a button. Having the ability to talk to someone miles away has made life convenient and full of contentment for modern day people. It is safe to say that the phone is one of the most important tools ever made along with electricity, the telescope, and the wheel. The practice of sending information has been a valuable assist to forming society since the renaissance. To be able to inform people can be the difference between life and death in a state of war. The phone is another staple to humanity such as U.S presidents are to the development of America.

However, not all presidents are helpful -to the well-being of the country as such not all uses of phones are beneficial to our daily lives. Recently phones have been the bane of our daily progression as we constantly check our phones as we work. Our phones have been given as much responsibility to their owners as their owners’ function in society. Moreover phones help us get things done. Now think for a moment about how someone could use that tool that helps you with getting things done with different intentions for its uses than to its owner’s purpose.

There you have an issue; the privacy of one’s belongings is one of the most sought-after luxuries humanity has set for itself. The foundation of America was fought for the individual privacy to practice any religion. Forward two hundred and forty years into the future and we find us with a similar conflict with individual ownership boundaries.

Most recently this conflict has been brought to light with news of terrorism in America. In 2015, a terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California. The terrorist attack was a mass shooting carried out by a Pakistani couple that aimed their sights at a San Bernardino county department of public health Christmas party, where 16 people were killed and 24 people suffered non-fatal injuries. After being pursued the couples were killed in a shootout with police. In all, a total of 40 people were harmed with the intent of causing terror in America. While investigating the remains of the couple, the FBI found an Apple IPhone that is understood to hold information on the couples’ activities.

The modern day conflict with privacy was that the FBI wanted Apple to open the IPhone encrypted system to investigate the information that it holds. How does one feel when their government pursues access to one of the most powerful tools in the current age? Giving the FBI that kind of power is a serious bridge of trust. The FBI has made a case with the Department of Justice that would put Apple in the position to hold responsibility of the phones property having been the manufacturer. Apple being the entity that it is was adamant to allow the case to follow through without debate first. The company stands against the FBI when considering how much power they could give the government with just one case to decrypt a single iPhone.

Beyond this instance the government can use this knowledge to perform whatever surveillance deemed useful, which is a lot of power. The debate over whether Apple can be held accountable for its products second party uses after developing an issue with a third party can show the conflict of interest between the American people and the consumers of technology.

The rights of Americans have been the country’s most treasured pursuit. To able to live in such a free nation has put a lot pressure on the government to protect our life styles. Our values as Americans have made us a target for terror to instill disbelief in our liberty. However, as Americans we stand together against those who oppose our rights. When analyzing the events at San Bernardino we understand that those who disagree with our way of life use it to their advantage to pursue a reality that does not already surround them. The FBI has made a request with the department of justice that would alert the world of technology consumers. A request that requires Apple to access information on an iPhone used by a terrorist. This request has brought the question of private security verse public security to the public.

Yaozong Ma in his article “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security,” claims “A cornerstone of the FBI’s argument was the All Writs Act which allowed courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Essentially, All Writs Act provides justification and authorization for courts to craft, enact, and implement orders which compel individuals to perform acts provided that reasoning is both necessary and legal. This shows that the FBI believes that they have the legal means to ask for assistance from a third party.

Craig Timberg and Greg Miller in their article “FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones,” report the motives of FBI Director James B. Comey wanting Apple to comply with their request. Comey states that, “He could not understand why companies would market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.” His reasoning is based on the assumption that apple only caters to the top percent of people who can afford their products. Protecting their private information is what made their company so great to their customers. He defends his stance on protecting the public; moreover it is such a hard stance he forgets that private privacy is just as important to the public. Apple has been known to sell the most exclusive hardware since the beginning of their company. Handling this situation can predict the future of the company.

Felix Wu in his article, “No Easy Answers in the Fight over iPhone decryption.” examples why the FBI’s request is undeserved of a warrant. He states, “Apple’s primary constitutional argument was that compelling its assistance would violate the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The argument is seductively simple, almost syllogistic. Step one: courts have previously recognized computer code as a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Step two: the Supreme Court has long held that the government can violate the First Amendment not only by restricting someone’s speech, but also by compelling someone to speak. Ergo, forcing Apple to write code that it did not want to write would be compelling it to speak, in violation of the First Amendment.” No company should be forced to be responsible for the fallout caused by their product. The company itself has no connection to the events that lead to the creation of the warranted evidence.

Rebecca Knight, in her article “National Security or Consumer Privacy, A Question even Siri couldn’t answer.” states several other reasons as to why Apple should not be involved with a FBI Investigation. She claims, “Apple’s argument was that Congress, not the courts, should determine when a third-party must be compelled to assist in investigations conducted by the government. Apple contended that if the technology that the Government wants were to be created, millions of people would be at risk of having their personal data hacked at no fault of their own but rather as a consequence of Farook’s act of terrorism.” Knight believes, “Legally, Apple argues that the Order had no statutory basis and violated the Constitution. First, Apple contended that its connection to the underlying case was too far removed to compel assistance.”  According to Apple, the technical assistance sought would be much more vast and complicated than simply pushing a few buttons, as the Government seemed to believe.  Apple argued that the Government did not demonstrate that Apple’s assistance was necessary to effectuate the warrant. Moreover, the Government made no showing of whether or not it sought or received technical assistance from other federal agencies with expertise in digital forensics, which could negate the need for Apple to create a backdoor into the iPhone. This lack of motivation allows Apple to devalue the FBI’s request for assistance. Next, Apple argued that compliance with the Order would violate the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically, the Government asked the court to compel Apple to write new software that would eliminate safety features built into the iPhone in response to consumer. Knight continued by saying, “Apple contends that the Order amounted to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. Under established law, computer code is treated like speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Thus, whenever the Government seeks to compel speech, the First Amendment is triggered. Compelled speech can only be upheld if it is narrowly tailored to obtain a compelling state interest. In this instance, the Government could not meet this high standard. Finally, Apple argued that investigating terrorism was a legitimate interest; the government only produced speculative evidence that Farook’s iPhone might contain relevant information. Without the right boundaries to connect Apple to investigation, complying with the FBI should to be a business transaction rather than a court order. However, Apple has no plans with allow the FBI to gain access to their encryption code. They wish to stand alone as an American company trying to protect the privacy of the American people.”

In addition, new developments in the San Bernardino case, days before the trail gave the FBI a different path towards unlocking the IPhone. The FBI was contacted by a third party who discovered a new method of accessing  the information on the IPhone linked to the terrorist. Now that the FBI has the knowledge to unlock iPhone, they can apply this information to other suspected cases of terrorism. However with this new development does Apple have the grounds to ask the FBI to explain their weakness in their hardware.

The bottom line is that tech company’s care about their customer’s option on the matter of private privacy. The public understands the need for a relaxed state of ownership when buying a piece of hardware. We live in a free country after all, can’t that freedom extend further than just the grounds we walk on. Our phone and the space within our phone is the new wild west of our country. This time is a new era for the government to explore the constitutional rights of a new land, the land of technology. The government was not able to push Apple into complying with the FBI’s investigation and took a stand against the superpower that is our government. If Apple were to comply with our government, who’s to say china would not ask for the same type of assistance with an investigation. If we cannot trust our country with our issues it is safe to say that it is not right for any company to comply with a government whose ambitions are ambiguous.

Work Cited

Yaozong Ma. “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review | IJHSSR. 8 Oct 2016. Web. 8 Nov 2016. <http://www.ijhssrnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2.pdf >.

Craig Timberg and Greg Miller. “FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones.” Columbia Public Schools / Home. 25 Sep . Web. 8 Nov 2016. http://www.cpsk12.org/cms/lib8/MO01909752/Centricity/Domain/5012/FBI%20blasts%20Apple%20Google%20for%20locking%20police%20out%20of%20phones.pdf

Felix Wu. “Law and Technology No Easy Answers in the Fight Over iPhone Decryption .” Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52095f5de4b0bc18c96d1924/t/57d6075944024343d19e1fc5/1473644381121/Wu+-+2016+-+No+easy+answers+in+the+fight+over+iPhone+decryption%282%29.pdf&gt

Rebecca Knight. “National Security or Consumer Privacy? A Question Even Siri Couldn’t Answer.” University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications | University of Cincinnati College of Law Research. Sep 2016. Web. 10 Nov 2016. <http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ipclj&gt;.