Why are modern scientists so dull?

[doctorobvious]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Why are modern scientists so dull?

Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity

Medical Hypotheses. Volume 72, Issue 3, Pages 237-243

Bruce G. Charlton

***

Summary

Question: why are so many leading modern scientists so dull and lacking in scientific ambition? Answer: because the science selection process ruthlessly weeds-out interesting and imaginative people. At each level in education, training and career progression there is a tendency to exclude smart and creative people by preferring Conscientious and Agreeable people. The progressive lengthening of scientific training and the reduced independence of career scientists have tended to deter vocational ‘revolutionary’ scientists in favour of industrious and socially adept individuals better suited to incremental ‘normal’ science. High general intelligence (IQ) is required for revolutionary science. But educational attainment depends on a combination of intelligence and the personality trait of Conscientiousness; and these attributes do not correlate closely. Therefore elite scientific institutions seeking potential revolutionary scientists need to use IQ tests as well as examination results to pick-out high IQ ‘under-achievers’. As well as high IQ, revolutionary science requires high creativity. Creativity is probably associated with moderately high levels of Eysenck’s personality trait of ‘Psychoticism’. Psychoticism combines qualities such as selfishness, independence from group norms, impulsivity and sensation-seeking; with a style of cognition that involves fluent, associative and rapid production of many ideas. But modern science selects for high Conscientiousness and high Agreeableness; therefore it enforces low Psychoticism and low creativity. Yet my counter-proposal to select elite revolutionary scientists on the basis of high IQ and moderately high Psychoticism may sound like a recipe for disaster, since resembles a formula for choosing gifted charlatans and confidence tricksters. A further vital ingredient is therefore necessary: devotion to the transcendental value of Truth. Elite revolutionary science should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs – so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers.


Full article at http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html

 

[StIGMA]

What compelled you to post drivel in this forum?

Other article statements from the same webpage:

"Kealey suggests that the major motivation for scientists is to attain status within the ‘invisible college' of active researchers in their field. So powerful is this motivation that scientists routinely subsidise their work from their own pockets."

"But one neglected area is the potential use of genetic engineering to increase human spiritual and religious experience – or genospirituality."

And oh! This is so pervasive, as the author would have you believe:

"Traditionally, science has been published only under the proper names and postal addresses of the scientists who did the work. This is no longer the case..."

"We argue that the most ambitious science is intrinsically riskier science, more likely to fail. It is almost always a safer career strategy for the best scientists to seek to extend knowledge more modestly and to build incrementally on existing ideas and methods. Therefore, higher rewards for success are a necessary incentive to encourage top scientists to work on the most important scientific problems, ones where the solution has potentially revolutionary implications. We suggest that mega-cash prizes (measured in tens of millions of dollars) are a suitable reward for those individuals whose work has triggered radically new directions in science."

Why are modern scientists so dull?

... Yet my counter-proposal to select elite revolutionary scientists on the basis of high IQ and moderately high Psychoticism may sound like a recipe for disaster, since resembles a formula for choosing gifted charlatans and confidence tricksters. A further vital ingredient is therefore necessary: devotion to the transcendental value of Truth. Elite revolutionary science should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs – so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers.

This and other articles on the webpage you listed are nothing more than anti-science, anti-research, and anti-scientist propaganda.

 

[doctorobvious]

This and other articles on the webpage you listed are nothing more than anti-science, anti-research, and anti-scientist propaganda.

Sorry if this article offended you. I didn't endorse it by posting it to the forum. I just thought it was interesting and might provoke discussion.

What about the article did you think was anti-science? Did you even read it?

 

[StIGMA]

What about the article did you think was anti-science? Did you even read it?

Maybe I could get someone elses opinion on how this sounds:

"Elite revolutionary science (ie: research) should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs – so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers."

Let's see... modern science is called revolutionary (put this together with the words cloning, gene therapy, or stem cell therapy... and you see where this is going), current scientists are altogether grouped as more or less inept (ie: not brilliant or inspired), and 'truth-seeking' currently does not occur, hinting that our results are inaccurate or fabricated. Earlier, it is stated that the weeding out process selects against smart people... are you kidding me, Dr. O?

 

[doctorobvious]

Maybe I could get someone elses opinion on how this sounds:

"Elite revolutionary science (ie: research) should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs – so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers."

Let's see... modern science is called revolutionary (put this together with the words cloning, gene therapy, or stem cell therapy... and you see where this is going), current scientists are altogether grouped as more or less inept (ie: not brilliant or inspired), and 'truth-seeking' currently does not occur, hinting that we are liars. Earlier, it is stated that the weeding out process selects against smart people... are you kidding me, Dr. O?

The author is not labeling all modern science as revolutionary. He is using the term "revolutionary science" to distinguish between what he calls "normal science."

Nowhere in the article does he call current scientists "inept." The thesis of the article is that the current science education and training system excludes and discourages many brilliant, creative people due to the high level of conscientiousness it requires.

You obviously haven't read the article. The author uses the term "truth-seeking" to describe scientists that seek scientific truth as a fundamental value. His argument is that we shouldn't recruit scientists that are only brilliant. They must also posses a deep, fundamental desire to discover the truth about the world. Otherwise, the brilliant but unmotivated scientist might veer from the course of truth for prestige, money, etc.

 

[QofQuimica]

Maybe I could get someone elses opinion on how this sounds:

"Elite revolutionary science (ie: research) should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs – so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers."

I think it sounds like a spoof. If it's not, then no doubt the author thinks himself to be in this oddball category.

 

[StIGMA]

The author is not labeling all modern science as revolutionary. He is using the term "revolutionary science" to distinguish between what he calls "normal science."

Yes, I agree. Ask yourself: "Why does he pick the word revolutionary among all other words..." and try to pin this to his agenda.

Other articles of his try to persuade scientists to support (or seek out evidence for) views such as cosmology and other areas outside of mainstream scientific investigation... maybe he has an agenda for seeking "brilliant, creative people?" hmm...

 

[Jorje286]

I think he's more critical of the way science is funded/organized in the world today, rather than science as a method. I don't see what's bad in this. I don't necessarily agree with all the points he makes, but there's a certainly an argument to make about whether government-funded science and the way success in academia is based (grants, peer-reviews..etc) is optimal for scientific progress. I think there's certainly a point in that there's too much politics in the science world, and a lot of success is based on networking, good communication and how to strike deals with others in the hierarchy.. something that could negatively impact the intelligent ones that have a lot to offer in science but aren't social enough to pull through.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I agree to some extent. I think that historically science has been driven by brilliant thinking and advances in technology. For instance, the invention of the telescope and then microscope opened up vast new fields of science. I think modern science is still pretty good with coming up with new technologies to solve problems. On the other hand, I think the theories are a bit too formulaic. Someone shows X. You take X and make a bunch of hypotheses and test them. You find out Y and then you report in your publication that you hypothesized Y and it was demonstrated. There's no discussion of the other interesting hypotheses, there's no ruminations on the broader ideas. There's also a very anti-tinkering attitude presently. As anyone can tell you, tons of scientific observations arose from non-controlled fishing-expedition experiments done on pure intuition. Some of the greatest inventions were not so much theorized as created from trial and error (Edison) or visualized complete in the head (Tesla). Because the ultimate scientific theory must be logical, there's this disdain for a non-rational approach in designing and planning experiments. Of course, the explanation of observations ought to be rational but there needs to be some imaginative leaps rather than just this plodding incremental expansion solely based on others' work.

Also, socioeconomics is a HUGE issue here. Scientists in the past were frequently independently wealthy or enjoyed patronage of the rich and powerful. Not only they, but many writers, painters, and composers as well. The current model of science is a battle with competition through a 15-20 year training process and the "audience" are the peers and competitors who approve your reports and essentially pay your salary. Obviously, this isn't the only path to success, but when your bread depends on pleasing your colleagues, then you are careful what you write and say.

 

[Joaquin]

the scientists i know might be called "dull" by paris hilton, but i saw plenty of psychoticism...lots of weirdness, irrational behavior, arguments, controversy, serendipity, etc.

the formulaic approach kinda works, but how many of you know the diligent graduate student who is a 7th year and never got anything to work...and the slacker who hit the jackpot one night?

the formulaic approach is typically used to squeeze out more science...but the seminal papers are usually pretty damn cool...

 

[Neuronix]

When you have to be the top student all through college, medical school, and then work constantly your whole life for your career, better and harder-working than your PhD or MD only cohorts...

I consider that kind of dull. It leads to a certain dullness at least, if you don't fight hard to combat it.

 

[Tradewind]

The use of IQ tests to select for 'intelligent underachievers' for admission to graduate school is a controversial idea. And yet, to some degree, this already happens. When applying to PhD only programs, GPA is far less important that when applying to MD only programs. PhD students are often 'underachievers' (or placing their energy in a different direction, etc..). Additionally, the argument could be made that the GRE is more a test of aptitude than the MCAT, which is more a test of aptitude + accomplishment.

Admission to PhD only programs on the whole is much less competitive than admission to MD only programs, which ironically, is the basis for some of these differences in admission criteria. So in some ways, the article suggests a "sour grapes" response.

The article has some applicability to scientists who are further along in their careers, as pointed out in earlier posts. But I would argue that socialization and organization of knowledge/tasks also fall under the definition of intelligence.

 

[Jorje286]

Additionally, the argument could be made that the GRE is more a test of aptitude than the MCAT

Disagree. It's actually quite ironic that the MCAT is a much better test for scientific reasoning skills. The GRE is a joke. With enough practice on the quantitative section, you can do well. The verbal section is an even bigger joke, cause it requires heavy vocabulary knowledge, which doesn't have a lot to do with "reasoning."

 

[Tradewind]

Disagree. It's actually quite ironic that the MCAT is a much better test for scientific reasoning skills. The GRE is a joke. With enough practice on the quantitative section, you can do well. The verbal section is an even bigger joke, cause it requires heavy vocabulary knowledge, which doesn't have a lot to do with "reasoning."

Yes, I know PhD psychologists (who've never taken the MCAT) who claim that the MCAT is a better measure of scientific reasoning and therefore of IQ. This may be the case.

On the other hand, lay people (or high school graduates) can take the GRE and perform pretty well, whereas intelligent lay people without premed coursework would likely bomb the MCAT. Seems to me that the MCAT requires more knowledge than the GRE and this would imply that the MCAT is a measure of aptitude + accomplishment, whereas GRE is more aptitude alone.

Of course, this won't be the case if English is not the first language, as the GRE is half English. I know immigrants who took the GRE and did remarkably well after studying specifically for the test, so I agree that the GRE is not an accurate measure of aptitude alone. I just think an argument could be made that it is closer to aptitude than the MCAT, which requires aptitude + knowledge.

Agreed that overall, the GRE is easier. You don't have to know organic chemistry, advanced physics or molecular biology! Duh! 🙂

 

[Tradewind]

When you have to be the top student all through college, medical school, and then work constantly your whole life for your career, better and harder-working than your PhD or MD only cohorts...I consider that kind of dull.

Speak for yourself, Neuronix! 😛

 

[Neuronix]

Speak for yourself, Neuronix! 😛

Ok. I skiied in 12" of powder yesterday that fell while I was out there, and another 10" fell overnight that I was out in today. 😛

 

[Newquagmire]

Why are modern scientists so dull?

Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity

Medical Hypotheses. Volume 72, Issue 3, Pages 237-243

Bruce G. Charlton

This is the same distinguished peer-reviewed journal that one or two years ago published an article on how intelligence is linked to cranial volume and consequently race...

 

[Jorje286]

Yes, I know PhD psychologists (who've never taken the MCAT) who claim that the MCAT is a better measure of scientific reasoning and therefore of IQ. This may be the case.

On the other hand, lay people (or high school graduates) can take the GRE and perform pretty well, whereas intelligent lay people without premed coursework would likely bomb the MCAT. Seems to me that the MCAT requires more knowledge than the GRE and this would imply that the MCAT is a measure of aptitude + accomplishment, whereas GRE is more aptitude alone.

Of course, this won't be the case if English is not the first language, as the GRE is half English. I know immigrants who took the GRE and did remarkably well after studying specifically for the test, so I agree that the GRE is not an accurate measure of aptitude alone. I just think an argument could be made that it is closer to aptitude than the MCAT, which requires aptitude + knowledge.

Agreed that overall, the GRE is easier. You don't have to know organic chemistry, advanced physics or molecular biology! Duh! 🙂

I definitely agree that the MCAT requires more knowledge than the GRE, and indeed anyone who wants a good score on the MCAT needs to acquire some amount of necessary knowledge. However, knowledge (and practice) can only take you so far and could very rarely account for the very high scores. On the other hand, you can do well on the GRE and score very high if you practice enough. So my point basically is that a 38 on the MCAT provides much better evidence of the intelligence of a person than a 800 on the quantitative section of the GRE (the verbal doesn't even account). (the opposite isn't true. a low score on the MCAT doesn't necessarily mean the applicant is dumb, precisely because of the knowledge considerations). Which is why it's not surprising that MD/PhDs don't require the GRE.

 

[Vader]

I would say that medical school admissions attempts to weed out social inept people these days. They people admitted are still very smart, but in a more focused, goal-oriented way. Graduate school admissions seems much more accepting of "weirdness", individuality and creativity.

The U.S. scientific system tends to reward incremental advances. NIH grants are awarded based on the feasibility of the experiments and preliminary data. This tends to reward those with hypothesis-driven experiments rather than "fishing expeditions". The award periods are well-defined and it is expected that for renewal that the PI will have published the work. Publication pressure tends to push the science done toward incremental advances. There are relatively fewer incentives (i.e. funding opportunities) to do high-risk, high-reward type science. The peer review system places a high bar for those who seek to overturn dogma. Therefore, there are a number of barriers that prevent researchers from doing paradigm-shifting work. It is definitely something to consider for those here interested in one day becoming a PI.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I would say that medical school admissions attempts to weed out social inept people these days. They people admitted are still very smart, but in a more focused, goal-oriented way. Graduate school admissions seems much more accepting of "weirdness", individuality and creativity.

The U.S. scientific system tends to reward incremental advances. NIH grants are awarded based on the feasibility of the experiments and preliminary data. This tends to reward those with hypothesis-driven experiments rather than "fishing expeditions". The award periods are well-defined and it is expected that for renewal that the PI will have published the work. Publication pressure tends to push the science done toward incremental advances. There are relatively fewer incentives (i.e. funding opportunities) to do high-risk, high-reward type science. The peer review system places a high bar for those who seek to overturn dogma. Therefore, there are a number of barriers that prevent researchers from doing paradigm-shifting work. It is definitely something to consider for those here interested in one day becoming a PI.

What do you propose as the solution, for an MD/PhD student? Do the incremental "acceptable" work until you get tenure, then do what you like (sort of) while supplementing your income with clinical work? It sounds like private donors are a potentially more viable source of funds for high-risk ideas than the NIH. Of course, that usually requires either someone exceedingly rich and interested in "health philanthropy" (Bill Gates) or someone who's been touched by a disease personally, like the man who's funding Denise Faustman's diabetes work.

 

[dl2dp2]

HHMI is an obvious case. I think there is high-risk/high-impact research being attempted. It's just you have to EARN the right to do it, and sometimes earning that right has a lot of luck/politics/seniority involved.

What do you propose as the solution, for an MD/PhD student? Do the incremental "acceptable" work until you get tenure, then do what you like (sort of) while supplementing your income with clinical work? It sounds like private donors are a potentially more viable source of funds for high-risk ideas than the NIH. Of course, that usually requires either someone exceedingly rich and interested in "health philanthropy" (Bill Gates) or someone who's been touched by a disease personally, like the man who's funding Denise Faustman's diabetes work.

 

[Vader]

What do you propose as the solution, for an MD/PhD student? Do the incremental "acceptable" work until you get tenure, then do what you like (sort of) while supplementing your income with clinical work? It sounds like private donors are a potentially more viable source of funds for high-risk ideas than the NIH. Of course, that usually requires either someone exceedingly rich and interested in "health philanthropy" (Bill Gates) or someone who's been touched by a disease personally, like the man who's funding Denise Faustman's diabetes work.

As sluox alluded to, it is true that HHMI has dedicated a portion of its funding to high-risk, high-reward type science. There are, as you alluded to, private organizations that fund more projects of this type. But overall, it is a problem, as the funding is heavily weighted toward incremental advances. On the individual student/postdoc/PI level, to use the investment analogy, my approach would be to maintain a diverse portfolio. I would take on a fraction of high-risk high-reward projects (i.e. aggressive growth stocks), but also have a number of "incremental" projects (i.e. bonds, cash) cooking simultaneously. The nice thing about being a PI is that the total number of projects is larger than can be accomplished as an underling. Therefore, you will be able, in aggregate, to pursue more high-risk projects than as a student or postdoc.

I do think that the NIH should fund a greater fraction of high-risk high-reward projects through special grant mechanisms reviewed separately. This would encourage and provide support for investigators to do a greater range of work and increase creative science.

 

[GliaGirl]

Why are scientists so dull these days? Obviously because mouth pipetting went out of style.

 

[Katatonic]

Why are scientists so dull these days? Obviously because mouth pipetting went out of style.

It went out of style "officially", but the hardcore among us won't be constrained by "safety standards".

 

[Red Leader]

Why are scientists so dull these days? Obviously because mouth pipetting went out of style.

Don't forget "tasting the strange mixture you just synthesized" instead of HPLC, or spec techs to characterize it.

Or getting undergrads to do the tasting for you. 🙁

 

[qtpai]

One might read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn--perhaps the most influential book in the history and philosophy of science in America--to understand the main influence of this article. Another one you might try after reading SOSR is Against Method by Paul Feyerabend, for an even more radical perspective than this article.