The Messy Nature of Science

At a very young age, we begin learning about the world of science. Every year we are taught about the six steps of the scientific method, the way scientists have determined the facts found in our textbooks, and the amazing discoveries that have been made. We know that scientists are well-educated and always have data to support their claims. As such, we grow up with a blind faith in science and the scientists performing it. On the surface, science is pure. It is a search for truth and understanding. It is used to make the world a better place. If we take a closer look, however, it is clear that science is not the enterprise of truth and fact that it appears to be. Scientific research and experiments are conducted by humans, and thus, like all other human activities, they are affected by human biases and influences. Jacob Bronowski, a biologist best known for his documentary series, The Ascent of Man (Encyclopedia Britannica), once said, “No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.” (Science Quotes) As we study science, it is important to realize that outside influences such as these do alter scientific data and to understand how they do so.



The personal goals of scientists are an important factor in the way they conduct their experiments. Before the experiment is performed, the scientist often already has an idea of what he or she hopes to find. A scientist may come up with a hypothesis that they are sure is correct. It could be the only reasonable explanation, but for their idea to be accepted, they must have the support of data. To achieve this, rather than forming a conclusion that fits their data, data is skewed to fit the desired conclusion. Data that does not fit the desired conclusion can be ignored or called an anomaly.



In The Golem, Collins and Pinch give an example of this type of data editing in their analysis of Eddington’s experiment involving the theory of relativity. Einstein made a hypothesis about relativity and Arthur Eddington agreed with it. From that point forward, he was biased towards that prediction. According to Collins and Pinch, when he was deciding what observations should be counted as data and which were just noise, “Eddington had Einstein’s prediction very much in mind.” (Golem 45) Eddington thought Einstein’s theory was correct, so he shaped his experiment to verify it. He used Einstein’s theory to understand his data; there was an “agreement to agree” (Golem 45).



Stephen Gould’s discussion of Cesare Lombroso in The Mismeasure of Man offers another example of human bias affecting science. Lombroso’s theory on atavism and criminality was shaped by his personal beliefs, gaining him criticism from many people. Paul Topinard said, “The conclusion is fashioned in advance; he seeks proof, he defends his thesis like an advocate who ends up by persuading himself…[Lombroso] is too convinced.” (Gould 164) His convictions caused him to work backwards, and hurt his science in the long run. Instead of being open to the truth, he tailored his work to support his opinions.



When we learn the steps of the scientific method, no mention is made of discarding data that does not fit the hypothesis. There is no indication that the hypothesis and the observations are so dependent upon each other. We imagine that to begin the scientific method, a hypothesis is formed and then tested. If the data does not support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is incorrect and needs to be revised. In real science, sometimes the data is what gets revised. The desire to be right and our bias toward what we believe is right are human factors that can greatly affect scientific data.



Science is a very competitive field. To be taken seriously, scientists must attain credibility. One would think that good data would be accepted from anyone, but this is not always the case. Credibility is especially important when presenting “incredible” science. The Golem states that “The struggle between proponents and critics in a scientific controversy is always a struggle for credibility.” (Golem 74) The way data is viewed is shaped by the credibility of the scientists.



In The Story of Cold Fusion, Collins and Pinch show how credibility affected the work of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. They were very well respected in the field of electrochemistry, but had no credibility as nuclear physicists, which is what their experiment involved. The claim that they were making was something physicists saw as impossible, so it was met with skepticism by the people in that field. When Pons and Fleischmann took their findings to their chemistry colleagues, however, it was met with enthusiasm because they saw Pons and Fleischmann as very credible scientists. One would think that something as concrete as scientific data would be received the same way by everyone, but the bias within the scientific community can cause the same data to be viewed and interpreted very differently by different people (Golem 66).



Culture also has an impact on scientific data. The Mismeasure of Man focuses on biological determinism. Many different theories are presented, and it is clear that the way those theories were viewed changed with time. Gould says, “The history of scientific views on race…serves as a mirror of social movements.” (Gould 54) As culture shifts, science shifts as well. As someone who rejects the idea of the inferiority or superiority of any human group, I am automatically opposed to the idea of biological determinism. During the 1800’s, however, the notion of black inferiority became popular because it justified their enslavement. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the theory of biological determinism would have been more widely accepted at that time. Many people believed that whites were superior, so they attempted to find scientific support to rationalize their beliefs. Gunnar Myrdal once wrote, “Cultural influences have set up the assumptions…with which we begin; pose the questions we ask; influence the facts we seek; determine the interpretation we give these facts; and direct our reaction to these interpretations and conclusions.” (Gould 55)



The effect of culture on scientific discoveries is evident in the story of Watson, Crick, and the double helix. The famous photograph of the duo with their model was staged. The model in the picture is not their original, but one that was built as large as possible especially for the photo. They made it as large as they could because they understood the way people think: the bigger, the better. The increase in size makes the discovery seem even more impressive. Something as simple as this has affected the way their discovery is viewed. The importance of their discovery has also changed with time. Today, the double helix is a highly-lauded discovery. When they discovered the double helix in 1953, it was met with great excitement from fellow researchers of DNA, but not from the general public. Events such as the Human Genome Project increased the importance of the double helix and changed the way people thought about Watson and Crick and their discovery.



Clearly human factors have a major influence on science and the way data is interpreted. Because of outside influences, the pure science of discoveries is not enough. It is important to note that it is not that scientists are conducting bad science. As humans, we are simply unable to be completely impartial. Our biases are evident and cannot be removed from science. According to Gould, “Science must be understood as a social phenomenon, a gutsy, human enterprise, not the work of robots programmed to collect pure information.” (Gould 53) As we learn about science, or even go on to perform science ourselves, we must understand that it is not a purely factual matter. As The Golem states, “It is our image of science that needs changing, not the way science is conducted.” (Golem 77)





















Works Cited

Collins, Harry, and Trevor Pinch. The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. 2nd ed.. United Kingdom: Canto, 1998.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc. New York City, New York. 1996.

"Jacob Bronowski." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 21 Oct. 2008 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/80945/Jacob-Bronowski>.

Science Quotes. Internet. Oct. 21, 2008. http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_science.html