Medical hypotheses
-
Editorial Biography Historical Article
First a hero of science and now a martyr to science: the James Watson Affair - political correctness crushes free scientific communication.
In 2007 James D. Watson, perhaps the most famous living scientist, was forced to retire from his position and retreat from public life in the face of international mass media condemnation following remarks concerning genetically-caused racial differences in intelligence. Watson was punished for stating forthright views on topics that elite opinion has determined should be discussed only with elaborate caution, frequent disclaimers, and solemn deference to the currently-prevailing pieties. ⋯ This needs to change. My hope is that truth will prevail over political correctness and James Watson will not just be exonerated but vindicated as an exemplar of the true morality of science: that scientific communication needs to be allowed to be clear, direct - even crass - in the pursuit of truth. James Watson has been a hero of science for the achievements of his career, and also a martyr for science at the end of his career.
-
A new collection of ideas from Medical Hypotheses by Roger Dobson is entitled Death can be cured and 99 other Medical Hypotheses. It consists of humorous summaries of Medical Hypotheses articles from the past 30 years. The book's humour derives mainly from the subject matter, although sometimes also from the 'unconventional' approach of the authors with respect to matters such as evidence, argument or inference. ⋯ False positives are more obvious, since the paper will be ignored, refuted, or fail to be replicated--and often attracts criticism and controversy. Editors may therefore take the more cautious path of avoiding false positives more assiduously than false negatives; however, this policy progressively favours less-ambitious science. Consequently, in Medical Hypotheses the 'set point' of risk is nearer to the false positive end of the spectrum than for most journals - and the publication of many apparently-bizarre papers is a natural consequence of this policy.
-
Crick and Watson gave complementary advice to the aspiring scientist based on the insight that to do your best work you need to make your greatest possible effort. Crick made the positive suggestion to work on the subject which most deeply interests you, the thing about which you spontaneously gossip - Crick termed this 'the gossip test'. Watson made the negative suggestion of avoiding topics and activities that bore you - which I have termed 'the boredom principle'. ⋯ So, if you pick your scientific problem using the gossip test and the boredom principle, you might also be committing career suicide. This may explain why so few people follow Crick and Watson's advice. The best hope for future biomedical science is that it will evolve towards a greater convergence between individual effort and career success.
-
Editorial Biography Historical Article
James Watson tells the inconvenient truth: faces the consequences.
Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as well as numerous public condemnations from the media and the scientific community. They justified these sanctions to the public through an abuse of trust, by suggesting that intelligence testing is a meaningless and discredited science, that there is no data to support Dr. Watson's comments, that genetic causes of group differences in intelligence are falsified logically and empirically, and that such differences are already accounted for by known environment factors. ⋯ Lies and a threatening, coercive atmosphere to free inquiry and exchange are damaging to science as an institution and to scientists as individuals, while voicing unfashionable hypotheses is not damaging to science. The ability to openly voice and argue ideas in good faith that are strange and frightening to some is, in fact, integral to science. Those that have participated in undermining this openness and fairness have therefore damaged science, even while claiming to protect it with the same behavior.
-
Partly spurred by the rapid emergence of discovery tools, empirical science founded on experimental validation now dominates academic funding, publishing, and recognition while forums for theoretical science have been marginalized. Although this hegemony of empiricism instills useful discipline to the scientific process, it also limits the pace of science to sensor innovation and renders the ontogeny of scientific knowledge path-dependent, concealing potential discontinuities in intellectual trajectories. Theoretical science, founded on intuition, inspiration, and abstraction, can complement empirical science by creating disruptive paradigms that facilitate detection of spurious results and frame new hypotheses. ⋯ Paradoxical medicine and dynamic range management may represent initial strategies to reprogram the neuroendocrine stress axes to modulate lifespan at the organism level, and many other strategies are anticipated. The key to theoretical science is original insight, but the prevailing pressure to conform to medicine's educational and practice standards dis-incentivizes independent thinking. A scientific future is envisioned when the commoditization of experimental science will enable its outsourcing, liberating health scientists from the tyranny of empiricism to engage in a more balanced process of discovery infused with theoretical considerations.