Let’s think of a
story about a great scientist.
It doesn’t have
to be fiction. Think about Galileo, when
everyone around him said the sun orbits the Earth, risking prison and exile to
prove otherwise. Think about Einstein, a
random patent clerk coming out of nowhere to totally upend modern physics. Or, if fiction is your thing, imagine
Professor Challenger doggedly trying to convince the Royal Academy that
dinosaurs still live. Or Milo Thatch getting
laughed out of the room for his crazy theories about Atlantis.
There is
something all of these stories have in common.
The entire scientific establishment believes one thing. A lone genius
believes the other. Everyone shouts him down until finally, the genius shows them all.
That’s the
exciting science story. And it’s a story
that is uniquely emblematic of what scientists believe about themselves. That everyone can be mistaken, that one
thoughtful, brilliant person can prove them wrong. And that
person becomes a hero for future generations.
It’s effective,
too. The lone genius story fits nicely
into our love of underdogs, of heroes who overcome the odds when everyone has
counted them out. No doubt these stories
have done a lot to glamorize science, and given kids role models to
start them down the path to discovery.
But they have
also done a lot of harm.
The valuable
lesson in these stories is to question everything, because anything you have
been taught might be wrong. But imagine you
aren’t trained in science. You see one
researcher come out with a wild new study linking, say, vaccines to
autism. Totally earth-shaking. And you see a bunch of stuffy old “establishment”
types shout that researcher down. They
get everyone to renounce his findings, destroy his career, make him a laughing
stock.
You immediately
know what movie you’re watching. You
know who the hero is, and who the villains are.
You know not to trust the overwhelming consensus, because in every story
you’ve ever heard about science, the consensus was proven wrong. The crazy guy
nobody believes? He is always right.
Evolution,
genetically modified food, global warming.
There are smart people who have counterfactual beliefs on these
topics. And it’s not because they don’t
believe in the scientific method. It’s
because science itself has told them to be skeptical of widely-held beliefs.
If you spend ten
years of your life studying environmental science so you could spend five more
years conducting an experiment that adds one more data point to the evidence
that human beings are causing climate change, you’re a very successful
scientist. But you aren’t going to have
a movie made about you. And you aren’t
going to get invited to come onto a cable news talk show. It’s not a narrative that resonates, but it’s
what 99 percent of real science is.
I’m not
suggesting that we all blindly respect expert consensus. That is, after all, antithetical to the scientific
process. But we do need to be a little
more careful about the types of studies we consider groundbreaking, and the
types of people we view as lone geniuses.
Have we actually done our homework, or just read about something on a Tumblr post? Are the
research methods sound? Is the study
funded by a biased special interest group?
Do we even know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it?
Because science
is different from literature. Just
because it makes a good story doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile.