Hierarchy in science

[dave]

As a further point to the article I wrote for Lablit last week (and to reveal my secret identity!), I would just like to ask, if scientists are so confident of the power of science, why do we need the titles and degrees to back us up? Shouldn’t we just let the science speak for itself? I know this is an idealist standpoint and my titles and degrees have helped me a lot in the past, but it seems wrong to me – essentially very unscientific. Any ideas?

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Whee. Well, we could say that it's to distinguish ourselves from the homeopaths and other alchemists.

Thing is, Dave, science never speaks for itself until you've repeated it, does it? I'm not making an argument from authority here, but it does let people know that actually, you do have a halfway decent chance of knowing what you're talking about: forcing them to go and check what you're saying ("we'll wait until you get back") is a tad impractical.

And, yeah, I'd like a bit more respect. I've worked fucking hard for this grey beard.

[Beatrice]

I think another problem is that science may speak for itself, but it's speaking in gibberish. Can I really let my last paper in J Cell Science "stand for itself" amongst laypeople who can't even understand the title let alone the particulars?

And as Dan says, who's to distinguish our message from that of the fringe scientists and pseudoscientists?

How do you see this working, dave?

[dave]

I acknowledge that the system has its uses as a quick check of the quality of a source but I worry that it is based on an ancient academic system that doesn't have much to do with the scientific approach. There are universities that offer degrees in homeopathy so presumably there are Professors of Homeopathy.

In your own field, where you know the people and their research I think you tend to ignore titles and affiliations and decide whether the research is any good based on the data and the track record of the scientist. But outside your field you would probably go with the professor from Harvard rather than the postdoc from Huddersfield (no offence Huddersfield and postdocs usually understand the research better than professors).

It's not a good system and my concern is that the general public are less aware of its problems than we are.

I think that problem of understanding the papers has nothing to do with titles and degrees. Some of the best communicators of science are not academics.

[amy c.]

Keep talking, keep talking. I need ammo for establishing a science writing program here.

[scurry_imperial]

Hi Dave - I think there is some point to the degrees since they (usually) signify that some training has gone on and that the holder is a professional scientist. Certification not a guarantee of quality but it can be a useful indicator.

I agree with the thrust of your piece that scientists should strive to make themselves more accessible and avoid pontificating! But I wonder is the problem as pernicious as you suggest? I have often encountered refreshing modesty among scientists, even from eminent professors who are ready to admit their ignorance or mystification on some topic. To me that is the mark of a rigorous thinker. To encourage my students to ask questions - even if they feel silly - I try to teach them what I believe is a piece of Chinese wisdom: 'Better a fool for five minutes than a fool for life'.

[Mad Dan Eccles]

In your own field, where you know the people and their research I think you tend to ignore titles and affiliations and decide whether the research is any good based on the data and the track record of the scientist. But outside your field you would probably go with the professor from Harvard rather than the postdoc from Huddersfield (no offence Huddersfield and postdocs usually understand the research better than professors).

Um, I don't know about that, dave. I think I'd be asking people—and we've all emailed a PI asking for a reagent or a method, and got a reply from someone that actually does the work, haven't we? But figureheads is a subtly different question.

I think that problem of understanding the papers has nothing to do with titles and degrees. Some of the best communicators of science are not academics.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Did you get passed over for that Chair?

[dave]

Scurry - I agree that most scientists are very approachable. What I'm saying is that the attitude of society as a whole is wrong, and the general public expect something different from the reality. That's the idea behind the event, to get everyone talking, because we can and it will be fun. Why don't you come along?

Dan - I've just been appointed as a Lecturer and haven't got used to my new title. Might be because I haven't done any actual lecturing yet. Feel like a plumber who has never fixed a leak! But I've never been comfortable with hierarchy in science. It shouldn't be necessary in my ideal world.

[Mad Dan Eccles]

So, dave (and I agree with you vis-a-vis the 'public'): it sounds like you're saying we shouldn't have degrees. Or we shouldn't have letters after our names (any medics listening can fuck right off just now)? What, in effect, is wrong with the hierarchy, outside of outreach in the community?

A lecturer is more 'honored' than a post-doc; a post-doc more than a grad student. There's a reason for that. It's a meritocracy, isn't it?

For the rest of you, I'm genuinely curious as to what the gripe is here. I'm not being my usual grumpy for the sake of it self

[dave]

I'm not saying it's necessary to get rid of degrees and titles although I think the value and meaning of a PhD is another interesting subject for discussion. I'm more concerned about the perception of what those degrees and titles mean. They do represent experience and past success but they don't necessarily mean greater intelligence or mean that the person is right. We might know that but a lot of people don't. It comes back to the point I was trying to make in the article. Scientists like to be humble and approachable but will use their authority and position if it helps them get what they need - funding, publications, credit cards.

[frogfactory]

I have no idea where you're coming from here, and I don't agree with you in any case. I would like point out that even the lay public is aware that even Nobel laureates can be complete idiots on subjects outside their field of study (a la Jim Watson). Yet I don't think anyone would argue that this devalues the Nobel (insert other honorific of choice here).

[dave]

Hi Frogfactory, That is a brilliant example to talk about. Would anyone have ever listened to Jim Watson on the subject of race if he hadn't won a Nobel prize? It was an amazing feat to see the structure/significance of DNA but is a Nobel prize the best way to recognise that? Is the consequence that people listen to what he says no matter what the subject or his expertise on the matter?

[frogfactory]

No, it's not. That's my point.

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Scientists like to be humble and approachable but will use their authority and position if it helps them get what they need - funding, publications, credit cards.

Who doesn't? Not just scientists.

[tideliar]

...if scientists are so confident of the power of science, why do we need the titles and degrees to back us up? Shouldn’t we just let the science speak for itself?

I don't get it... that's kind of a non sequiteur isn't it?