Graduate studies have a way of replacing naive confidence with hedged skepticism.
Almost a decade ago I started The Bearded Biologist on this site with the simple intention of bringing interesting science into the open in the hope that other people would share the excitement I was feeling about the life sciences. Something about the logarithmic portion of the learning curve is so enthralling; every new fact falls into place in a satisfyingly unsurprising way, as though it is being welcomed home instead of hastily accommodated by an unprepared host. For me, the joy of discovery always creates the impetus to evangelize, and having found my passion in science I was itching to spread the good word of science.
So while I went to college and worked part-time as a lab tech at a biotech company I would fill my free time indulging in random deep dives into literature and blogging about them. The right mix of mentorship and broader context had put me on a track into the biotech industry, so a majority of the science articles were journeys down various biomedical rabbit holes that had piqued my interest. This process probably contributed to my learning just as much as any of my classes, regardless of whether anyone was reading this or not.
Amidst all the glossing and reviewing I also felt naively empowered to emphatically assert some fairly mainstream defenses of the “scientific way of thinking” amalgamated from the pages of Popper, Dawkins, Pirsig, and Dennett. I wasn’t breaking philosophical ground by any stretch of the imagination, but I was finding my footing in reason and scientific thinking. Of course, the combination of youthful ignorance and empty intellectual confidence can be dangerous, but I never asserted anything with undue authority. I did make the mistake of climbing onto a soap box that put me at odds with a group of anti-vaxxers, but that happens to the best of us, right? (This was in 2016 when the topic was still considered fringe.)
To my present relief, the blog was hacked and despite recovering a backup I decided not to open it up and reinstate the old posts. I can assure you the ideas contained in them won’t be missed. However, I do want to share one excerpt from the last draft I wrote for The Bearded Biologist in 2016:
In the review of scientific findings you will find many paragraphs dedicated to recounting the experiments underpinning what we call “facts”. Only occasionally you find some closing sentences about the most significant dissenters’ attempts to disprove the theory, but this lack of negative information portrays a false sense of assuredness in what we “know”. For the purpoes of progress, scientists bootstrap their knowledge, occasionally filling in gaps with convenient guesses. When the untrained eye notices these “deficiencies” they may accidentally assume the whole structure is similarly lacking.
Seeing an unfinished bridge does not typically inspire confidence in its structural integrity, but scientists frequently reveal findings to the public that are not “complete” in they way they are portrayed on face value. So I ask a simple question: to whom do we owe the duty of satisfied concerns? Need we only convince other scientists and regulators that something is true? If so, it is too easy to ignore the views of the other stakeholders. Unanswered questions cannot just be ignored, and the present skepticism of science is a failing on our part to give the public what they are owed.
The Bearded Biologist, unpublished draft dated 08/20/2016
In the time since drafting those words science has faced some serious headwinds, and arguably some failures of scientific communication. Seeing an old post titled “Zika Virus: what you need to know” reminds me how much our perspective has changed over the course of a pandemic, but there is still work to be done. History will judge the success or failure of the scientific community during COVID, but it is reassuring to know there are many people still inspired to communicate science to the masses. I am hopeful that the tides will turn once again towards logic and reason, regardless of whether it seems wishful.
I am now in another transition period after completing my PhD in July, and luckily this time the site had nothing much to be hacked. After years of intense inquiry, it is a bit odd to have a blank slate in front of me. It is impossible not to look into the past at a time of transition, trying to glean something from the review of my progress. I see today that I am still the same curious scientist who wants to learn and wonder and wander down rabbit holes, so I return to this blog to record those journeys. However, much has changed since then. Graduate studies have a way of replacing naive confidence with hedged skepticism, a process that requires being humbled to one degree or another. I am thankful that I was willing to change and grow through the process, and I hope to continue that into the future.
This new blog, Cell Lines, will cover a wide array of topics in life sciences research, the history and philosophy of science, and whatever else comes up as I randomly search for something interesting to think out loud. If you are reading this, count me pleasantly surprised. You should subscribe, who knows what is coming next! (I sure don’t!) I wouldn’t want to miss it!
Stay curious, friends.
