Blog post: Tridimity: On Science and Scientists

Contrary to what most of us were (sadly) taught at High School, Science is much more a way of thinking and of approaching problems than it is a body of knowledge. The memorisation of scientific facts could arguably be regarded as a wasteful and unconstructive attempt in the scientific endeavour unless the material is carefully selected. Not only does the rote memorisation of scientific facts require a great deal of energy, the undertaking is often quite unnecessary – if one is able to consider the problem at hand and how to approach the problem, it will become apparent which background information is necessary and which superfluous. Then, so long as one is able to navigate the relevant information sources with some efficiency, the rote memorisation of scientific facts is rendered futile (excepting the very fundamental concepts and details that are used on a frequent basis) - the implications for science education are clear. It may be impossible to claim absolute truth – although some (myself included) believe in the existence of an ultimate objective reality that exists independently of our senses - nevertheless the majority of scientists would agree that Science represents the most reliable means of approximating truth. Assuming that this conception of the nature of Science is correct, what are the necessary corollaries for the nature of Scientists? Well, arguably, Scientists are not necessarily those whom are able to memorise and regurgitate scientific facts but those whom are able to (and do) think scientifically and approach problems in a scientific manner. The common usage of the term ‘scientist’ is applied to PhD graduates who are actively working in the field.

Einstein was no stranger to adversity and hardship; completion of his doctorate came after a period working at the Bern Patent Office, where he was passed up for promotion until he “fully mastered machine technologyâ€. Einstein is perhaps the best known revolutionary scientist but he is certainly not alone in the unorthodoxy stakes – the history of Science is pervaded by individuals operating on the skirts of the mainstream system. Lovelock was likewise unorthodox and staunchly independent – even working out of his own makeshift laboratory at his home in South West England. Nobel laureate Gertrude Belle Elion took perhaps the most obscure path of all three by foregoing a doctorate completely. At what point can our three exemplars be considered scientists? Elion shows that a PhD, while oftentimes sufficient, is not always necessary to self-identify as a scientist. Einstein’s status as a scientist, post-1905, was unquestionable – but one wonders if it would not be correct to say that he was also a scientist while working and thinking about Relativity at Bern? Lovelock operated for a time outside of mainstream scientific institutions – would it really only be accurate to describe him as a scientist while he was being paid for his work? What of the periods of freedom from the shackles of received wisdom – his walks in the country, which ultimately spawned the Gaia hypothesis?

Much of Einstein's revolutionary thinking was done at Bern

Lovelock worked independently in his self-made "experimental station"

Gertrude Belle Elion: scientist sans PhD

For all that the ivory towers are hyperconscious of their own image on the international arena, their flagrant shamelessness in failing emerging intellectuals in their time of need only to clamour to associate themselves using phony honours once the individual’s ability and success have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, is all the more astonishing. How would an Einstein, a Lovelock, an Elion fare in today’s system?

It is my contention that there are ultimately two main cultures of Science: exclusive and inclusive. The exclusive flavour is engendered by elitist institutions that either explicitly or implicitly demand a large financial payment before considering candidates; by the highbrow types who deem the razzle-dazzle of introductory science experiments to be cheap tricks rather than as a means of engaging children in Science; those who would rather hoard their data than share open source so as to maximise profit and with disregard for the humanitarian need for sharing. Unfortunately it remains true that there exist individuals within scientific institutions willing to persecute scientists on the basis of their race, gender, age, sexual orientation, social class or regional accent; to deny them the opportunity to fulfill their potential and so hold them in a state of professional limbo. The surest way to do so is to retard progression by failing to acknowledge intellectual potential or failing to provide the opportunity to display such potential. The technical and engineering sectors within Science have historically been looked down on by scientific snobs who, when you look at the situation, are entirely dependent on the hard and oftentimes unrewarding work of support staff to facilitate their experiments. The stereotype was closely aligned with social class and this remains true today.

What these institutional bullies are really denying is the one thing that anybody and everybody who is interested in Science wishes for most: to align themselves in identity with the human endeavour they most love. By controlling or limiting the identity of others, bullies hope to achieve domination. I think, in some respects, the response of the oppressed must be that of those who are oppressed in any situation – to recognise the fact that they do not have to wait to be given the right from others; that certain rights are fundamentally theirs. It is no good waiting to receive from tyrants the respect that one deserves in reality – it will never be bestowed, or if it is, it will be bestowed under duress and half-mockingly. Nobody owns your personal identity but you. The moment you stop finding interest in Science, the moment you stop asking questions about the natural world and probing them in a scientific manner is the moment you stop being a scientist.

Read and comment on the full post