This weekend was a wild ride on Twitter, with one very famous biologist saying something completely unnecessary about Eugenics which many have interpreted as both pretty unsavoury and unscientific. Then, the Royal Society decided to commemorate Galton and Fisher through a series of tweets... men who are famous for their contribution to statistics, in part, through their obsessions with understanding racial purity. And, yes, big proponents of Eugenics in the early 1900s.
This is not a post about breaking down why Eugenics won't work, or the ways in which science (as a discipline) has contributed to racism through an ironically highly unscientific curiosity about race. This has been done numerous times by people far more eloquent and thorough than I am. (For instance, see "Superior" by Angela Saini).
But this is a moment to reflect on the dangers of famous scientists depicted, publicly or in their disciplines, as geniuses. And the problem, unfortunately, is systemic.
We learn about the successes of "geniuses" but not their failures
The big problem about learning about geniuses, is that we learn about their scientific successes and their personal failings. They are seen as astute geniuses who are "a product of their time".
But here is the catch...
When you read more widely about the science they did (and not just their breakthroughs), you realise that most of them are actually a bit disappointing.
We can use Raymond Dart as an example. He is often taught in a way which highlights his expertise as anatomist in his naming the Taung Child as a part of human ancestry. But it's only when you read more broadly about his other scientific obsessions, that you realise that he, too, played a role in this hyper-obsessive time of evaluating the racial characteristics of the Khoe and San. Not the characteristics of white people, mind.
The unfortunate reality of overshadowing "geniuses"
Nothing demonstrates that this obsession with scientific genius is problematic better perhaps than what is known as "Planck's Principle".
"A great scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it".
Max Planck (Yes, another famous scientist)
In a 2019 paper called "Does Science advance one funeral at a time?", researchers showed a surge in the citations of non-collaborators after the premature deaths of prominent scientists. Let's face it... this is annoying. Unfortunately for younger researchers, older, more established opponents are often more connected to journals, have access to more funding, and (if we are being honest) are not always 100% ethical in their discourse or aware of their power.
This is perpetuated by the reality that, in many scientific journals, peer review is done in a way which is single-blind: where the authors are known by the reviewers, but the reviewers may be anonymous. There have been numerous debates around what kind of review system is best, and whether any is meaningful in a world where people can put their unpublished articles out in pre-print.
And yet, it is quite illuminating that single-blind review appears to favour authors of high prestige or from prestigious institutions. These are the gatekeepers of science. Some of them might be good people. They might be thoughtful thinkers. They might be highly analytical or otherwise very very clever... But our obsession with their genius is dangerous.
We forget what science is...
Finally, I think it is worth pointing out that many good, thoughtful scientists are not geniuses. Science progresses because lots of hard working people are looking at the world, and trying to find ways to understand just a little bit more about it.
Yes, there were milestones and breakthroughs which make for fun anecdotes! But that isn't science. Science is the small things, being run through the mill of tests and debates, until we come out with a little bit more knowledge.
Yes, it's probably a bit boring... But when we let these small, hardworking, and (let's face it) at least a little clever people, do their work honestly, then we might be able to make a discipline which doesn't need to wait for someone to die in order for it to progress.
Having said all this, I cannot help but echo the call that, if we are to promote a single "face of a scientific discipline", let's promote someone who is not just an amazing scientist, but also enthusiastic, kind and thoughtful. So if you are at a loss as to who to go to for information about biology on Twitter, follow @hood_naturalist. You won't be disappointed.
References
Azoulay, Pierre, Christian Fons-Rosen, and Joshua S. Graff Zivin. "Does science advance one funeral at a time?." American Economic Review 109, no. 8 (2019): 2889-2920.
Okike, Kanu, Kevin T. Hug, Mininder S. Kocher, and Seth S. Leopold. "Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige." Jama 316, no. 12 (2016): 1315-1316.
Planck, Max K. Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. (1950). New York: Philosophical library.
Saini, Angela. Superior: the return of race science. (2019). Beacon Press.