Science is, in essence, a purely rational discipline. While naive notions of hypothesis testing or theory falsification as the primary purpose of experimentation can be dismissed out of hand, the project of science is nonetheless inherently logical, as opposed to emotional, political, or spiritual. The proper measure of a theory is always its ability to model the observed world. Neither the personal ramifications of the theory, nor its source, have any impact on its truth. In this light, I have difficulty understanding the reverence heaped upon those who have achieved success in their scientific pursuits.
Nobel prize winners in particular are accorded almost god-like status. The walls of the atrium of my present lab are decorated with pictures of our collaborators, but also with pictures of notable scientists with whom we have no direct connection. Amongst these latter pictures are a few featuring the heads of the lab together with Nobel winners who happened to pass through Zurich and give a talk at the university or ETH. Recently, Roderick MacKinnon, who won the prize for determining the structure of the potassium channel using x-ray crystallography, deigned to grace our lab with his presence for a few hours and was given the royal treatment. Indeed, in announcing this visit, one of the lab heads said, "Rod MacKinnon will be coming to visit. I trust you all know who Rod MacKinnon is," and left it at that. No, I don't know who Rod MacKinnon is. While the result for which he received the prize is important, it constituted a page or two in my introductory neuroscience textbook. It is an important piece of background information regarding the biophysics of neurons, but it has absolutely no impact on my daily work. My research would be unaffected if the three-dimensional structure of all the neuronal ion channels was still unknown. I work in a laboratory focused on computational and theoretical neuroscience. Why should any of us know who Rod MacKinnon is? Nevertheless, we had a special tea to fete MacKinnon, and everyone gathered around at his feat so that they could root about for any pearls of wisdom he might carelessly cast down. After making the obligatory graduate-student-pounce on the free food, I went back to my desk to get some real work done.
Perhaps my awe of the Nobel prize and those who have received its blessings was dulled by my years at MIT and Caltech, where you could sometimes bump into such holy personages while using a urinal. The sight of David Baltimore zipping around on his Segway like a doofus, crowned with a bicycle helmet, fails to arouse in me any worshipful feelings. The Nobel prize and other such awards are a valuable motivation for scientific achievement, but it is important to recognize that the sort of success they honor depends on luck as much as skill. The ranks of scientists at prominent universities are filled with researchers of the highest caliber who didn't happen to try the one long-shot technique that actually worked, or make just the right mistake when performing an experiment to reveal a wholly unexpected phenomenon. Just because the Nobel committee doesn't think a particular result is worthy of recognition this year does not make it less important than the finding which does happen to be honored.
Did I mention how much I like NIPS's double-blind review policy? I hope all journals adopt that model. Papers should be judged on their content, not their authors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I sometimes revere great scientists. The reverence partly derives from my experience of what it takes to "get the job done". Rod is a very good example of a great scientist. He is both brilliant and capable of executing the logistics to make breakthoughs.
Science (as occurs outside of your head) is performed by human beings. Some scientists recognize that the most talented individuals we know are capable of feats we can't possibly accomplish ourselves. This reverence is sometimes shared by large institutionalized groups of scientists. The pomp and circumstance often gets out of hand, and the accolades are sometimes misplaced, but just as often...not so much. When someone, whether an artist or a scientist, get "lucky" repeatedly, it's talent at work. Rod captured a holy grail that eluded many very smart and motivated people for decades. It was an awesome accomplishment; given your lack of interest, you'll have to take it on faith (or not) that you lack the perspective and background to recognize this.
Couple of other thoughts:
I have difficulty understanding the reverence heaped upon those who have achieved success in their scientific pursuits.
So, you feel that our reverence should be reserved for whom?
My research would be unaffected if the three-dimensional structure of all the neuronal ion channels was still unknown.
Aging is a great opportunity to gain a broader appreciation of important scientific advances that don't directly affect your own current area of investigation. It (the appreciation, not so much the aging) is entirely optional however. It certainly can be overwhelming just to gain a fundamental grounding and sense of accomplishment in one's "own" field of endeavour.
I work in a laboratory focused on computational and theoretical neuroscience. Why should any of us know who Rod MacKinnon is?
I wouldn't expect that you necessarily would. I would however expect that a rational and emotionally secure scientist would be open-minded enough to view an opportunity to talk to a (potentially) extremely smart and capable guy, with something other than negative feelings.
After making the obligatory graduate-student-pounce on the free food, I went back to my desk to get some real work done.
Sounds like a missed opportunity, rather than a time management victory, to me. Exactly how much did that afternoon of "real" work contribute to our present understanding of neuroscience?
Did I mention how much I like NIPS's double-blind review policy? I hope all journals adopt that model. Papers should be judged on their content, not their authors.
Couldn't agree more.
Good luck. Working on some of your personal attitudes will gain you more scientific progress than you can possibly imagine.
Post a Comment