Science Needs To Get Back To Its Experimental Roots

In my opinion, scientists have become too focused on certainty and finality to rely on the creativity and experimentalism that inspired our field.

One of the biggest flaws in all of humanity is our need for certainty. We need exact details, we crave one, true answer to our exact questions. Unfortunately, that very same humanity often results in life existing in more of a grey area, providing a cloud over the safe certainty of black and white.

By now you’re probably questioning if you’re reading a deep philosophical writing from ancient Greek scholars, right? Well, when you get a PhD, they don’t often tell you that it stands for “doctor of philosophy” now do they? But all jokes aside, I’m neither a true scholar, nor here to discuss the essence of humanity with you. I’m here to talk to you about science.

Science is a beautiful field, full of energy, uncertainty, and folks striving to learn. This uncertainty is often referred to in a negative manner amongst both scientists and nonscientists. Increasingly so. Especially as folks have gone to great lengths to poke holes in scientific theories with a loud anti-science voice having risen in this country.

In efforts to combat the misinformation and misunderstandings of the anti-science movement, scientists have often relied on a strategy that focuses on highlighting their accolades and certainty. Surely our PhD and Master’s degrees weren’t for nothing; everyone must trust that we’re definitively right because of how hard we worked! But within that very sentence it is easy to identify the key mistake that most scientists make during science communication efforts!

“Only A Sith Deals In Absolutes”

Almost nothing is definitive! Science is not about finding a one true answer to rule them all. It is about constantly asking questions, approaching them with creativity, and most importantly, looking at the evidence. The evidence may suggest one thing, and upon learning more and adding more, suggest another. Science changes its mind, as the scientists change their mind in response to new information. This is how it is supposed to work. When scientists tell you the climate is changing or that forever chemicals are bad for you, it is because they have looked at the evidence and it has continually pointed to this conclusion.

My stance that climate change is real and that forever chemicals (aka PFAS) are bad for you, is rooted in the evidence that has been presented to me. It is unlikely that someday there will be enough evidence to prove those two claims wrong. However, if there is ever a compelling amount of data and science to prove me wrong, you better believe I will change my stance! That’s how science works.

Publish or Perish

In the race for scientific domination that has ensued from the current “publish or perish” practice, folks have shifted from prioritizing creative science in favor of finding certain, quantifiable findings that are sometimes, obvious. Here’s a great example of that. One of my favorite quotes from my PhD advisor focused on statistics. He asked me to do a specific statistical test to analyze some data from PFAS samples in a river. He told me that the statistical test will tell us “something that we already know”, but will make other people believe it. What ever happened to trusting your eyes? We looked at the existing data, noticed a distinct pattern, and wrote a great paper on our findings to communicate it with the broader community. I find it funny that including a test like that was a pre-requisite to publishing, as it provided validity to my arguments that quite frankly, the paper didn’t need.

The purpose was not to create a legal document to dictate the outcome of a lawsuit, which is a finding more and more scientists seems to be striving for in their work. Certainty, it’s all the rage, as the kids say. Instead, my hope was the study would inspire other scientists to begin to explore their own local rivers, and that the state agency would do their own, thorough study. And herein lies the problem that ties this whole rant together.

There is a time and place for scientists to be a voice of authority. I completely agree that many studies are vitally important to determine how we regulate, cleanup, and manage our contaminated ecosystem. The problem is that grant agencies, funders, and the anonymous journal reviewers now expect every single paper to fit that definition. That’s an impossible task, and one that goes against the very basis of scientific method, experimentation and the pursuit of knowledge.

What Happened To Experimentation?

The “publish or perish” mindset has made it that every paper must provide a groundbreaking result with unimpeachable finality, with no wiggle room. Yes, many studies SHOULD strive for this goal. But should every study? Don’t we want to have exploratory work and proof of concept ideas that will go on to the be the basis and inspiration for future work? It seems more and more that today’s studies must be a literature review, proof of concept, application, and validation all in one. This is how ideas die, ideas that may have been shared with the world as a mound of wet clay that would be shaped, sculpted, and perfected by another scientist who stumbled upon it.

The point is not to do science for the sake of science. The point should always be to improve human life and existence through your science. But some of the best and biggest breakthroughs need data, raw ideas, and inspiration to even begin to percolate.

It is not the opinion of this scientist that more shitty studies should be published. It is the opinion of this scientist that we should be more open minded to creating reputable journals and repositories where good ideas can be presented. And ideally, scientists will be rewarded for these good ideas, creative thought processes, and pursuits of knowledge. Just as they are for every non-metric multidimensional scaling plot that they produce to show that yes, the PFAS is clearly coming from the known source of PFAS that happens to exist right where you are sampling.

Want to hear me talk PFAS? Check out this podcast I did with the Environmental Business Council!