Windsor Pub, wednesday evening. Is there something unique that drives someone to be a scientist- and a good one? These days the three of us ask ourselves questions like these with increasing regularity. Cynicism is thriving, fueled daily by petty lab politics, vindictive (or incompetent) bosses and mafioso journals.
So over beer we search for answers- if I may be melodramatic- to bolster our crumbling beliefs in the power and beauty of science. O and I argue that to be a good scientist, you need an inherent sense of curiosity. Curiosity about the world around us, a burning desire to understand. Without that, you'll never be the real deal, hell, you wouldn't even have picked this life in the first place! And this spills over into our 'real' lives as well. Question beliefs. Challenge dogmas. It could be religion or politics, it might be my own relationship with someone- but I always try to really get under the skin of things and figure them out. Isn't it this which makes me what I am? Scientist and person?
IR counters though- devil's advocate always- wait, he says. What is a 'good' scientist? Is good= success= good? For success, you don't need curiosity. You just need to play it by the book, grease the right palms, do the experiments the journals expect from you. Just like any other job. And success will be yours. And people will say, oh yes, he's good. You might be the most creative person around, the most curious, but success may elude you. And in the eyes of the world, so will greatness.
Hold on, I say. I don't believe that. I don't believe you can truly be a scientist if you don't have that spark inside you, eating you up, egging you on. Despite the politics and the rat race and god knows what else. It has to be that way. Otherwise I'm driving in the wrong lane.
I don't think IR really believes what he said either.
*************
A few weeks ago D told me (following a long monologue on my part about my life and my choices) ,"so... you're a creative person, who has simply chosen to express that creativity through science". That must be one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me.
I hope I deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So what would your definition of a 'good' scientist be and how would you differentiate between a 'good' or a 'successful' scientist?
Well, its really a very subjective thing- but as far as I'm concerned, a 'good' scientist is driven by his desire to extend his/her comprehension of the world they study. Knowledge for knowledge's sake. Success, on the other hand, in any sphere of life, is defined entirely by society. In science success would mean getting lots of funding, publishing well, raking in awards-
I guess what I'd really like to believe is that you can be the former and the latter will follow.
Post a Comment