Sunday, January 28, 2018
The Role of the Individual and Ego in Science
When exactly did it become common, or even expected, that scientists and researchers had egos that dwarfed their body of work? When did scientists like Watson and Crick come to tower over other talented pioneers who were working just as hard, simply because they had bigger mouths? The road to scientific discovery is paved with woeful misconduct and injustice. Take for example, Rosalind Franklin, a name scarcely mentioned in the history of DNA, but a key component in isolating its double helix form. Like many others throughout history, the chemist died without her contribution being recognized, while other, more arrogant individuals claimed sole credit for her body of work. From Mendel to Tesla this happens to be a pattern in the annals of scientific discovery.
The Genome War seems to postulate in chapter 2 that scientists like Mendel, or Franklin, could never be successful as a result of their meekness. “It is probably better to air on the side of arrogance than humility,” Shreeve states before launching into a critique of the “father of genetics” and giving a brief, ego-filled run down of genetic discovery through the ages (Shreeve, 27). After ages of scientists who are ruled more by an overinflated sense of self than a desire to do good, we reach Craig Venter—brilliant, bold, and widely disliked for a multitude of valid reasons. The man’s whole life is a tale of selfish choices, from his questionable military service to his sham of a marriage(an event that continues to repeat).
As I got further into the story, the more I disliked Venter, and lamented the state of the scientific community. The tale of human genome sequencing as recounted in this book is a tale of ego on ego, each intellectual giant fighting to overshadow others and secure a place in history. Adrienne Macartney, an admittedly unknown geochemistry researcher out of the University of Glasgow, comments on this very thing in her article, Scientific Ego and the Value of Failure, wherein she points out that many scientists fail to publish relevant findings obtained through falling short, for fear that they will no longer be viewed as brilliant by their peers. Her thoughts crystallized a lot of the way I felt on reading this book, that perhaps if researchers focused less on the way others perceived them and more on the value of discovery and the greater good, that advances could be made more quickly.
Even the Human Genome Project failed to run smoothly, as scientists clashed on how much funding was needed to complete the project and everyone fought for a larger slice of the metaphorical pie. While humility may prevent glorification of the self and a rapid spread of new discovery, ego can prevent discoveries from happening and credit going where it belongs. If The Genome War is an accurate representation of the state of research, the focus has shifted too much from the pursuit of knowledge and the greater good to the fulfillment of self.
Macartney, A. (2017, December 13). Scientific ego and the value of failure. Retrieved January 28, 2018, from http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/adrienne-macartney/scientific-ego-and-the-va bn13579458.html
Shreeve, J. (2005). The genome war: how Craig Venter tried to capture the code of life and save the world. New York: Ballantine Books.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see what you're saying and I agree. I did notice that despite of Venter's ego and his responsibility to shareholders, he did intend to release the genetic data to the public instead patenting it, recognizing the grandiose nature of the project. So he stroked his ego and did the right thing at the same time.
ReplyDeleteOne could argue that he tried to do so because he wanted to be loved by the public, to be seen positively. So I believe the public's perception and demand also impact the scientific community and advances, sometimes even TRUMPing egos.
I, too, found Venter to be a distasteful character - both for his private and public behaviors. I also don't know when it became the "norm" for scientists to reach fame and notoriety for their ego and personality as opposed to, you know, their actual scientific findings and research. I wonder what is the point of making the progress we have, if it's done for selfish reasons? The underdogs, Rosalind Franklin especially, deserve(d) better.
ReplyDeleteI especially appreciated your point on publishing. A major issue with research is sharing negative results or ones which go against the current model. While an experimental error is still a potential cause for the latter, the overarching point is that if it’s not a major development, it’s not worth your colleagues’ time. So much valuable research, even if it’s published, gets lost in lower tiered journals because it isn’t the next big step the rest of that field expected. The value of your professional reputation often seems to match your impact more than the implications of the research itself.
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting idea, that your ego is what gets you published and not your research. This could explain why it takes decades to sometimes disprove a theory to the public because some big name came up with the original research and no one is willing to look like a fool for trying to contradict them. It really does seem like the bigger splash you make, the more well-known you will be.
ReplyDelete