an evening with james watson
I've had the pleasure of attending a talk at the Dana Centre featuring James Watson, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule this evening, accompanied by Shan and Song and it was nothing short but a personally enlightening and insightful experience. Among the many issues he spoke about are:
First, claims that current genetic research is prone to hypes (or that the 4 most prominent letters in genetic research now is H-Y-P-E). He argued that the so-called 'hypes' does not imply any act of dishonesty on the part of the scientist, rather he felt that it should be more correctly attributed to inexperience.
Second, regarding the fact that human genes are so similar to that of other animals yet our mental development are strikingly dissimilar to that of animals have led some people to argue that a unique set of genes distinguishes us from animals. He believed that subtle changes in many genes, rather than a singular change in one unique gene is responsible for this.
Third, the current uncontrolled access to research materials on genetics by the public and whether this trend is good for public understanding especially when we need to convince the public on the benefits of new technologies, for instance genetic engineering. He felt that unrestricted access to these materials have somewhat hinders the progress of science and in his own words, has 'diluted' scientific progress by bringing too many parties into the decision-making process. He argued that by doing so, it means that less competent people have equal chances in the decision-making process than the more competent ones, a situation which he finds unacceptable. Futhermore, he recounts that in the old days, the conditions in the scientific arena is "more autocratic, less democratic" and he is not sure that more democracy in the decision-making process in science is more beneficial to the progress of science.
He thinks that scientists should focus more on their work and get it done and over with as quickly as possible so as to produce results and added that there is no better to convince the public than to show them that it works. In short, he believed that the decision-making should be left to the experts and calls for a central figure or some form of scientific leadership to regulate and decide on such decision-making process; he also laments that he could not think of such a figure present now.
First, claims that current genetic research is prone to hypes (or that the 4 most prominent letters in genetic research now is H-Y-P-E). He argued that the so-called 'hypes' does not imply any act of dishonesty on the part of the scientist, rather he felt that it should be more correctly attributed to inexperience.
Second, regarding the fact that human genes are so similar to that of other animals yet our mental development are strikingly dissimilar to that of animals have led some people to argue that a unique set of genes distinguishes us from animals. He believed that subtle changes in many genes, rather than a singular change in one unique gene is responsible for this.
Third, the current uncontrolled access to research materials on genetics by the public and whether this trend is good for public understanding especially when we need to convince the public on the benefits of new technologies, for instance genetic engineering. He felt that unrestricted access to these materials have somewhat hinders the progress of science and in his own words, has 'diluted' scientific progress by bringing too many parties into the decision-making process. He argued that by doing so, it means that less competent people have equal chances in the decision-making process than the more competent ones, a situation which he finds unacceptable. Futhermore, he recounts that in the old days, the conditions in the scientific arena is "more autocratic, less democratic" and he is not sure that more democracy in the decision-making process in science is more beneficial to the progress of science.
He thinks that scientists should focus more on their work and get it done and over with as quickly as possible so as to produce results and added that there is no better to convince the public than to show them that it works. In short, he believed that the decision-making should be left to the experts and calls for a central figure or some form of scientific leadership to regulate and decide on such decision-making process; he also laments that he could not think of such a figure present now.
On the issue of therapeutic cloning, he argued that it should be supported and slams those who try to block such advances by arguing that 'every life should be cherished'; he felt that the statement have been stretched too far and that nobody deserves to live crippled with a disease when we have the means to diagnose and possibly cure the disease at our disposal. To do so would either mean that we are crazy or evil.
Lastly, he hopes that reproductive cloning would never happen but he felt that it will inevitably occur eventually because he finds the idea of cloning a person 'unsettling' and 'cruel' because the clones will be judged based on its behavior with respect to the original person, something which will put a great emotional burden on the clone and those around him/her. He does not believe that cloning will be able to preserve the traits and characteristics of the original person and adds that he is a firm believer in nurturing.
Personally, I find it refreshing to hear some of these issues being spoken by a real scientist, because at times I do felt that some scientists allow themselves to be bogged down too much by public opinions and political undercurrents which somewhat slows down the rate at which scientific progress could be made.
Listening to him speak, I could sense that he is a true scientist and pragmatist, with a clear idea of what our tasks and responsbilities as scientist should be -even though we might find some of his views objectionable. He believes that we, as scientists should maintain our focus on our research and work as dilligently as possible and allow the results to speak for itself rather than spending too much time trying to convince the public about its significance.
I knew beforehand that he is a rather opiniated person and that his views might at times looked a bit controversial. However, you cannot deny that he is a person with a clear sense of purpose and displays utmost faith and devotion in his work.
Lastly, he hopes that reproductive cloning would never happen but he felt that it will inevitably occur eventually because he finds the idea of cloning a person 'unsettling' and 'cruel' because the clones will be judged based on its behavior with respect to the original person, something which will put a great emotional burden on the clone and those around him/her. He does not believe that cloning will be able to preserve the traits and characteristics of the original person and adds that he is a firm believer in nurturing.
Personally, I find it refreshing to hear some of these issues being spoken by a real scientist, because at times I do felt that some scientists allow themselves to be bogged down too much by public opinions and political undercurrents which somewhat slows down the rate at which scientific progress could be made.
Listening to him speak, I could sense that he is a true scientist and pragmatist, with a clear idea of what our tasks and responsbilities as scientist should be -even though we might find some of his views objectionable. He believes that we, as scientists should maintain our focus on our research and work as dilligently as possible and allow the results to speak for itself rather than spending too much time trying to convince the public about its significance.
I knew beforehand that he is a rather opiniated person and that his views might at times looked a bit controversial. However, you cannot deny that he is a person with a clear sense of purpose and displays utmost faith and devotion in his work.
And considering the contributions he has made to medical sciences as a result of believing in that, I think we could do well to emulate it.
posted by wanaimran at
9:28 PM
5 Comments:
oh yar...and i tgh fikir that...the thing about hype is bcoz a lot of ppl dun realise how hard research is and how long, drawn out and metriculous the process it...to the layman, it's probably just something that can be done on a whim, a no basis claim etc etc...so they think its so easy to come up with a claim and generate a lot of hype for it. naturally, after slogging it out in the lab for a number of years, a scientist who finds something worthy of mention will of coz talk about it with pride...well until the media gets hold of it and hypes it up w/o really understanding. and i hate commercialisation anyway...reproductive cloning...disgusing..
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
the problem is sometimes the hype makes the subject more obscure than it already is so a scientist needs to be a good communicator as well. but when u think about it, recent advancements in sciences really have little correlation with the daily lives of normal people; for instance, who cares if pentaquarks exists or not? but, i must fairly admit that it is getting more and more difficukt for scientist to effectively communicate their findings to the public... the challenges now is even greater for them....
yea well, tell them some, dun need to tell them all...like what wan said about the pentaquarks, like what i'd say about the CheW, CheY signalling mechanism of E.Coli flagella motors...they don't need to know and theres no need to...coz they just don't have the knowledge to know what to make out of them. next thing we know they'd be saying stuff like...well, E.Coli is a pathogen rite???rite???so lets use what we know about the motor to try to kill it this way. and probably apply it to other pathogens...another thing that mite arise from that is exploitation of knowledge by commercial companies...hate them...all they wana do is make money out of new, overhyped things...yea...we're back to hype again...recall the discoveries of thalodamide (is that how u spell it?) and radium...disaster is it not? ill effects not known coz the profit orientated idiots decide to capitalise on the hype and sell all kinds of products...a more recent example would be the use of a biomolecule on one of the face creams to promote anti aging of the skin...true, cytochrome c present in the cell prevents aging coz it makes the mitochondria more effective (its already present in the cell anyway) but...it being in a face cream...means it'd be exposed to sunlight...causing free radicals...causing...cancer of the skin...that is so stupid...still hate big profit making companies...(sorry having a bit of a rant here)
my humble responses are as follows:
ON COMMUNICATION
though i agree that educating the public is paramount to raise the awareness of the public concerning science, what i mentioned in my post regarding communication is not about the 'basic' kind of scientific education to children in schools etc. rather what i intend to point out is the communication of the latest scientific research to the public i.e. the results from the high-end of scientific research... and it is not a question of whether at all the public should be provided with this information, instead it is more of a question of to what extent and how much they should know.... it's a question of degree.... and who is in a better place to regulate this flow of information? it's useless to give a fishing pole to someone if we do not teach him how to use it to fish....
ON OPINIONS ABOUT RESEARCH
one thing i didn't mention in the post about James Watson is that he does not believe in any religious or spiritual underpinnings in his life; and given that information, i do not find it suprising if he believed that the improvement in the quality of life is a direct result of the advancement in scientific knowledge... and how does one actually 'quantify' or 'measure' scientific progress?
well, there are many views on what actually consitutes scientific progress? Thomas Kuhn in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution' said that 'science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts." He coined the term "normal science" to refer to the relatively routine, day-to-day work of scientists working within a paradigm, punctuated occasionally by a "scientific revolution" which radically changes the fundamental underpinnings of scientific knowledge.' but there are many other views on the subject; Popper's Falsification etc. each having a different idea of what constitutes scientific progress...
ON FUNDING RESEARCH
He also mentioned that scientist should be provided with more money to fund their research (but I did not put it in my post); when asked what is his motivation for undertaking his current project on researching genes in autistic children, he simply answered, 'Money'....
I'm a bit uncomfortable with your use of the word 'con' esp when you said that 'If u can con as many kids to do science as possible...then it's good lor - doing your role in the science community'.... the word 'con' implies as if we are tricking them to take up science just so we have a pool of talents to continue the momentum of scientific research.... what's the point of having a large number of people inspired to take up science if their heart is not into it? from your examples, I felt that they are more suited to be engineers rather than scientist? isn't that what's happening now; we are producing more and more engineers everyday? deciding to be a scientist is triggered by more than just a single-day instant inspiration; one must also be deeply committed to the subject and have the determination to go on even though when circumstances seemed bleak and hopeless.... childhood idealism - even though necessary - is not sufficient to keep one in the business of scientific research; the real life of a scientist is not a glamorous one (James Watson also mentioned this when asked about his feelings when he worked on the figuring out the structure of the DNA) and I think many people who are driven solely by their childhood dreams might find their preconceived ideas on the job of a scientist to be sorely misleading.... in short, i rather have a small number of people who are good and dedicated rather than a large number of people who are dillusioned and uninterested.
And the other more prominent reason big companies make profit is because of the uncontrolled access to scientific research and lack of understanding and insight into the full capabilities of a particular scientific discovery. Though I do not think full suppression of scientific information is the way to curb this, but I do not think full exposure of scientific research information to the public is going to solve the problem either.... like you always say jia hong, one must find a fine thin balance between the two...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home