There has been a lot of talk in the media about the loss of courtesy in modern society. By many criteria, it seems that people in general have lost a degree of politeness. Reading some of the online comments after several recent articles in
The Scientist would seem to indicate that biologists have also lost their manners.
I’m thinking, in particular, of some personal attacks posted in response to
Les Costello’s article in the September issue arguing that the National Institutes of Health are biased against senior scientists, since they give funding preferences to young investigators. Some of these readers commented on Costello’s recent grants, noting that he hadn’t submitted a competitive application within a few years. “I left basic academic research for one reason—people like you running the field.” “The whole system is broken, and people like you are going to keep it broken while you write papers on the backs of grad students and postdocs.”
This lack of basic manners alarms me not only because of the obvious danger to our sense of community, but also because this type of behavior could damage society’s positive perception of scientists.
Psychologists have suggested that when a group becomes stressed, it tends to lose the manners that serve to maintain normal relationships between its members. Biologists as a group are certainly under a lot of stress recently because of increased competition for funding, publications, and jobs. However, it is essential that we maintain respect for each other in our public discourse. Respecting each other is essential for real scientific dialog. If you dismiss someone’s opinion based on your feelings, you lose your objectivity. But being dismissive and emotional during public discussions also makes you look bad to other people and erodes your credibility.
Ideally, a scientist should be a dispassionate observer of the world who weighs the evidence and provides a thoughtful, well-reasoned judgment. This is clearly an idealistic vision of our profession to which we frequently fall short, mostly because scientists find it difficult to be dispassionate about anything. Yet, we should strive for this ideal if we expect that scientific opinions should be given special consideration in society.
This is important because we want people to believe in the data gathered and evaluated using the scientific method. If people aren’t confident in the people who are gathering the data, they won’t believe in its veracity. The jury’s negative opinion of the reliability of the DNA evidence gathered in the O.J. Simpson case is a glaring example of this truism.
I discovered the value of remaining objective recently when I was invited to give a lecture on the human genome project at a local church. I thought this would be a good opportunity to educate the public on why gene-sequencing data supports the theory of evolution. For most of my lecture, the audience seemed quite taken by the beauty of the common genetic ancestry of life. Predictably, halfway through my talk, a creationist started protesting that evolution was a lie. I maintained my calm and simply disagreed with him, stating that the facts of the matter did not support his claim. The more I remained calm, the more agitated he became. Finally, members of the audience asked him to leave “because they were interested in learning something.” He stalked out of the room in a frustrated huff. In this case, my dispassion bolstered my credibility.
I don’t think that my experience is unusual. Most people can tell the difference between reasonable assertions and unsupported conjecture. The problem is that when emotional outbursts are injected into a situation, any pretense of objectivity becomes lost.
In these times where science offers the best hope for progress in an increasing complex and fractious world, it would be a real tragedy if the bad behavior of some scientists compromised our reputation as neutral seekers of truth. Whether we like it or not, the behavior of each of us colors the popular perception of scientists as a whole.
Steven Wiley is Lead Biologist for the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/1/1/23/1/
comment:
it's not manners that are lacking...
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2010-01-13 16:29:37]
While I agree with the premise of the article, that scientists should have better manners, I think using the words of a frustrated post-doc who brings up excellent points regarding why the academic system is broken is not a good example of "lack of manners". It is an example of frustration, which very many grad students and post docs feel these days. "Manners" start with the mentors/PIs. In my experience, PIs of all levels are increasingly paranoid about each other and ruthless behind each others' backs. Many do not want competition from younger scientists, even their trainees, and therefore sabatoge them or hold them back. Many purposefully hold onto data in order to manipulate the opinions of competitors/collaborators. Why? They are either scrambling to develop their career, scrambling to hold onto their career, or scrambling to crush out their competition and pad their incomes/frequent flyer miles. What is lacking is not manners, it is job security, funding, salary, and quality of life. Unfortunately, this is the environment so many people are trained in these days. The aggressive and narcissistic people survive in science these days. It is no wonder that "manners" is lacking.
Scientists as neutral truthseekers? Not so much in this very cutthroat world.
comment:
oh please
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2010-01-13 11:16:57]
After reading this I had to go seek out the "rude" comments on the other article. If you ask me, this guy is right on the mark. You can't expect young scientists to be treated so badly for so long, and not be a little angry about it. Too many of us have just been quietly leaving science without a peep.
Here's the "offending" comment:
Talk about defending the status quo
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-09-01 09:33:27]
When I heard about this I knew the old guard would kick up a fuss.
The best part is "we survived the process - so can you!" This is the same logic that keeps medical residents up for 24 hours at a time when this has been proven to be dangerous to patients health.
The truth is, when a grant review committee receives the same exact grant application from a new investigator with 15 papers, and an ancient one with 200 papers, they give it to the old guy due to his "reputation" whether it is deserved or not.
The argument that young scientists are technologists with no broad reach is ridiculous - no doubt you started the same way sir, and only accumulated your integrated knowledge over a lifetime.
I left basic academic research for one reason - people like you running the field. With a payline of 10%, do you really expect a young investigator to try and build a lab and raise a family and teach? The system is now set up so that only the old established labs survive, and the few craziest young investigators willing to sleep in their labs while writing grant applications furiously have a slim chance of making it through.
You just don't realize that you are losing a whole generation of good scientists due to the lack of funding for young PIs and a ridiculous 5-6 year post-doc system that leaves you with no IRA and a slim chance of finding a decent job.
These changes MIGHT help, but they won't be enough - most of the smartest people I know realized this was essentially a lottery and left science ages ago. The whole system is broken, and people like you are going to keep it broken while you write papers on the backs of grad students and post-docs that should be earning twice what they are, and should have a reasonably predictable future but don't.
comment:
Evolution of Manners
by TwinDeerMother WhiteBuffaloCalfWoman
[Comment posted 2010-01-13 08:05:53]
Relatives,
To lose confidence in scientists when science is used for personal gain and/or self-serving purposes, is what we all do.
There is no possible way to change a man's heart, except with love. It is the sacred path, that must enter our lives.
This world is all for defending one's self, morals, and quite frankly our work ethic. This is not receiving others, to hear, what they may have to say. One writer says, he must politely tell others, they are wrong, well what if everyone is right? And it's only about the perspective!
We need find our hearts, to know brotherhood. Evolution will save us, since, it's time. Three more years, before sacredness must be learned or Heaven will simply cleanse the Earth. We scientists all know it. The common man all know it. But we all fail to see from others perspective, to know real love, where we receive each other.
Alightfromwithin.org is a place for Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy, where truth matters, and standing up for morality, is a survival of the fittest.
So my Brother Steven, it's the children's world now, and they must learn to respect elders, who have wisdom and knowledge. This cannot change with science or with the religious man, but the integration of both worlds. Wakan Tankan (walkin and talkin) sacred is the only way home.
your devoted servant,
White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother
I bless you, I bless the world, I bless myself for you!
comment:
Excuse me, we should be nice to each other?
by F DEWOLFE MILLER
[Comment posted 2010-01-12 16:37:11]
This comment is intended only for the author.
As they say, what rock have you been so luckily to be under? Science has no alternative. It?s too bad it has to be done by humans. Aside from the nasty person to person brutal contact sport of science, science is just not nice. I know too many who have had an attempt on their data or lost it to some other scientist, including myself. I dropped out of science in disgust decades ago and joined the counter culture. Unfortunately, the stupidity of that culture drove me back. But do not forget the larger even more sinister aspect of science like thermonuclear devises, just as a starting place. This is not new. Did you not ever read Mark Twain? How about Kirk Vonnegut? If you are so uneducated as not to know and understand the evil of science, then you should not be there. We are about to destroy the place we live on, dude. Even a caveman is smarter than that.
Please understand that I like doing science. It's just the institutions and other science people that make it so painful.
Regards, F. DeWolfe Miller
comment:
It should read
by Rafaela Canete-Soler
[Comment posted 2010-01-12 05:00:51]
Sorry Dr Wiley. Last paragraph of previous post should read:
The public might lose confidence in scientists when science is used for personal ECONOMIC gain and/or self-serving interests.
comment:
Manners matter !
by Rafaela Canete-Soler
[Comment posted 2010-01-12 04:43:23]
Hello Dr Wiley,
I like very much the main theme of your article: ?manners matter!!!?. Manners can be instrumental for creating an ambience where dialogue progresses toward common understanding of the issues at hand. Rational solutions can then be found in the context of participation and opportunities for all parties involved.
Good Manners might not always be identified with politeness. Perhaps, they should also be identified with the ability to walk on other people?s shoes or even imagining yourself walking barefoot.
Good Manners might be the attribute of those who had experienced or are experiencing fulfillment. Losing your manners is certainly a possible human reaction in those searching for it without apparent opportunities.
As the English say goes: *Age before beauty*. It could be translated into: *Persuasiveness before good manners*. And persuasiveness is best exercised when one is able to walk on other people?s shoes. Or better, trying to walk barefoot.
I am not sure if the public loses confidence in science when manners are lost because there are little, if any, opportunities for new scientists or new science. The public might lose confidence in scientists when science is used for personal gain and/or self-serving purposes.
comment:
Excellent point
by David Harrison
[Comment posted 2010-01-11 13:18:09]
Totally agree. When I stand up to question a speaker who I think is totally wrong, or when I am the speaker and I think the questioner is totally wrong, I try very hard to remember to start by saying - "That is a very interesting point" And then try to politely and calmly show why they are wrong.
You rarely can change someone's mind. But if you make good points without emotion, often they will consider your points objectively, and then change their own mind.
You have to be dealing with rational people. Unfortunately too many US voters seem to enjoy being entertained by "Shock Jocks" rather than rational discourse.
Reblogged by White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother, Elder crystal person,
wakan iyeshka or holy interpreter, alightfromwithin.org , Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy
Warriors of the Earth 
