Do you agree with me on the following?
.Science can solve anything.
..Social problems are not getting easier to understand.
…Our understanding of people is not improving.
….Transcending Boundaries means challenging assumptions.
If you agree, let’s talk.
Science can solve anything. As a young doctoral student, I believed that through Science, we could better understand ANY problem and take steps towards a completely efficient and effective solution. And why not? We tamed the atom and we peered into the furthest reaches of the universe. How hard could understanding world hunger or oppressive dictatorships be? All we needed was good scientific principles, quality data, rigorous methods, and an intellectual environment that nurtured quality research. How hard could this be? 
Social problems are not getting easier to understand. In many ways the world has not improved since 1980. Sure, we have flying cars and can read our genetic code. But there’s many ways in which things are worse. We thought the end of the Cold War would “free” up the oppressed soviet states and reinvent a forward thinking Russia. Instead we have Putin. We also have an oppressive and aggressive China. There’s Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, The Philippines, Myanmar, and Egypt. There’s religious extremism, non-localized religious-based violence, and escalating intolerance of culture as well as xenophobia throughout. There’s a good chance NATO and the European Union were effectively destabilized by “bad actors” as well, using the latest technology in combination with old-fashioned subversion tactics in order to implement strategies that spans decades. Finally, what about the doomsday clock, statements from the doctors without borders, reporters under attack, and notices from human rights watch?
Our understanding of people is not improving. There are no fundamental scientific advances as far as understanding people or social behaviors that we’ve discovered. If I’m in error, I’m eager to accept any scientific findings to the contrary. 
Transcending Boundaries means challenging assumptions.
1) Encouraging scientific rigor and accountability within disciplines. We can institutionalize (and reward) replication within our educational system and require it of academia.
2) We currently allow for the validation of scientific integrity within disciplines through peer review and specialized societies. Perhaps it’s time for us to do the same BETWEEN disciplines.
3) Associating an individual’s ethical integrity in any aspect of their life to their scientific life. #MeToo has been a watershed for recognizing long standing biases against half the population. But are we confident that someone who is willing to compromise their ethics in one area of life can exclude it from their professional lives? Ethics in all areas should also be an aspiration and never assumed. 
4) Last, but far from least, true progress can’t be made unless we adhere to tried and true scientific principles in every aspect, bar none. Definitions, logical rigor, standardized, calibrated, and validated methods of measurement, and rigorous methodologies that use p-values properly would be a start. 
If you agree, let’s talk. I’m Steven, a retired businessman and inventor. In the 1980s I was an idealistic doctoral student. I earned a master’s and continued my studies in order to keep track of the progress made in understanding our humanity. Forty years later, I’m hoping to meet like-minded individuals at the AAAS 2019 convention to see if my experience can make a contribution, no matter how small. I look forward to meeting you and lending you a sympathetic ear, at the very least. You can mail me at Zebra Skimmers (no spaces) at Gmail.
 For the record, I still believe Science can help us understand our problems, but the solving part is problematic. Understanding problems also means understanding the forces working against solutions, and that, unfortunately, is a whole other problem.
 The works of E O Wilson and early work of R Dawkins could be considered fundamental, but so far applying them to humans has been unsatisfactory.
 “Plagiarism at Integrity Meeting” brief in Science, page 209, 18 January 2019.
 “Misinformation Machine” in Science, page 348, 25 January 2019. Particularly the 3rd and 4th paragraphs regarding disparate definitions of “fake news.”