Speaking up for scientists

We can be arrogant and nerdish, but overall scientists do not set out to deceive themselves or the public

Philip Strange
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 March 2010 17.00 GMT
Last weekend on Cif Nicholas Maxwell accused scientists of "deceiving us and themselves about the nature of science". As an experimental biomedical scientist with 30 years of research experience, I looked for my own experience of science in his critique, but could not find it.
His main criticism is against the use of evidence to support scientific knowledge. He rejects as "nonsense" the idea that "nothing is accepted permanently as part of scientific knowledge independently of evidence". He cites subjects such as physics, where he says unified theories are accepted independent of evidence.
In the biomedical sciences, things are rather different. Research is conducted on the basis of a hypothesis and experiments are designed to probe the hypothesis. The results are analysed using statistical tests to decide whether the data agree or disagree with the hypothesis. Even if we are convinced by the results ourselves, we still need to convince our peers through the peer-review publication process.
This sort of science is not big science; it is incremental science. Each increment in knowledge may seem small, but it contributes to a body of knowledge which may eventually lead to an overarching theory. This evidence-based approach is fundamental to the biomedical sciences and has also transformed the practice of medicine. Maxwell believes scientists see themselves as "seekers after truth". In my view, this is a misrepresentation of the way science works; I prefer to see the scientific process as providing descriptions of natural phenomena that are consistent based on current evidence.
Maxwell goes on to consider "value" in the aims of science. Here I believe he is asking whether experiments performed are worth doing in terms of their outcomes. Most biomedical scientists would consider their work to be of intrinsic value as, by its very nature, biomedical science investigates topics related to human health and disease. But this is not enough and researchers do need to question continually the value of work performed. Some research will lead to high-value outcomes and some will not, but it is difficult to predict this at the outset. One important control of value comes from the peer-review process embedded in publication of results and in the grant review process.
Finally, Maxwell refers to "knowledge of valuable truth", which I believe relates to the dissemination and use by humanity of the results of useful research. Publication is one way of disseminating results, but it does not ensure the results are used well or widely known. High-quality reporting of science in the press (of which there is almost none) would help to disseminate scientific findings. There is also a political dimension as the use of results for the greater good depends in some cases on governments. Climate change is a good example: the scientific results about the effects of anthropogenic global warming are known but governments are sitting on their hands rather than taking difficult decisions.
Finally, let me speak up for scientists. In my experience, the vast majority of scientists are honest, sometimes slightly nerdish people who are grateful to be able to work on something about which they have a passionate interest. Scientists can be arrogant: but overall they do not deceive themselves, or the public.