McClintock: Failures of the Scientific Community and Fighting Norms

While McClintock’s difficulties in communicating the results of her research to her colleagues are understandable, the backlash she received for it is shocking to me.  Keller notes that criticisms came even from a frequent visitor of Cold Spring Harbor who most likely knew McClintock well.  The surprising part of these criticisms is that this group of highly intelligent geneticists failed to recognize that such harsh condemnation of her work as a well-respected researcher would suppress further communication.  I think that this consequence represents a failure of the scientific community.  The telos of a scientist to gain new knowledge about the world through reproducible investigation is interrupted.  Such a response combats the pursuit of understanding.  McClintock’s peers seem to have given little effort in understanding an obviously difficult concept, and chose instead to negatively respond.

            These last chapters also bring up a virtue that is well represented by McClintock, especially in her work with transposition.  Keller quotes McClintock’s advice, “There’s no such thing as a central dogma into which everything will fit…So if the material tells you, ‘It may be this,’ allow that” (p. 179).  Most of the problems that came with the response to her work on transposition resulted from her colleagues’ loyalty to former theories and ideologies.  McClintock’s work as an exemplary scientist establishes what should be required for the virtuous scientist.  Her investigations are made with an open mind.  Her conclusions are taken from what is in front of her. Dominant schools of thought on particular subjects should have little influence on the interpretation of new observations.

McClintock Chapters 5-8

          Chapter 5 reiterates the importance of the "professional friendship" defined earlier in class discussion.  McClinctock's colleague Lewis Stadler appears to be most aware of the telos of a scientist in that he recognized McClintock's unique abilities and committed to finding a position that suited them.  Regardless of her individuality and independence, I believe McClintock needed these professional offers due to conflicting interests of practices external to the sciences.  Practices such as administration, which often pursue reputation and money rather than knowledge, stifled McClintock's ability to research and discover.  In situations like these, professional friendships are not merely supportive.  They are vital in the culmination of an exemplary scientist.

            Another stifling effect that McClintock was able to avoid personally was the impact of orthodoxy within science.  Although Keller paints McClintock’s skepticism towards the dominant theories in her field as another innate, eccentric quality, I believe this skepticism is a natural reaction of a true scientist.  Those who aim at discovering new truths about the world should work with the understanding that few things are definite.  New knowledge can be gained with the help of existing theories, but it can also be found to disprove them as well. 

            One concept I struggled with in these chapters is Keller’s comment that, “No scientist ever develops in a vacuum, but it is difficult to find any direct intellectual influences that can be held responsible for this element in her thought” (p. 103).  This sentiment is also seen in Darwin’s autobiography as well.  For me, this is an unsettling idea.  If the development of a true, exemplary scientist originates from internal influences, scientists must be born scientists, right? These readings are slowly shrinking the scope of my definition of a scientist, and sometimes the specifics are troubling.

Barbara McClintock: Obscurity and Passion

            Chapter one’s focus in McClintock’s biography seems to be on the state of the sciences, namely biology, during her lifetime.  It is important to note that McClintock experienced multiple revolutions in biology, followed by periods in which scientists remained firmly assured with previous theories.  However, as more of a naturalist, McClintock did not fail to suggest an idea like transposition, even though it starkly challenged the unidirectionality of the  “central dogma” as coined by Crick.  This biography does not seem to suggest that McClintock performed her unpopular work out of fearlessness, but rather that she was simply an “impeccable investigator” (p. 10).

            Reading this biography induced comparisons to our previous readings.  In terms of popularity and recognition, there is a large difference between Darwin/Franklin and McClintock.  I’ll admit that before this class, the name was only faintly familiar.  While we can read the autobiographies of Franklin and Darwin, much of the primary writings of McClintock involve her scientific work.  For this reason, Keller’s job in writing McClintock’s story is unfathomably huge. The complexities of scientific virtue range from the wrinkled clothes of Darwin to the neatly pressed clothes of McClintock.  While McClintock’s story may require more active investigation, understanding how she performed her work is significant in realizing what scientific values she upheld.

            A more explicit point I took from the opening chapters of this biography was McClintock’s parents’ encouragement to follow passions with the utmost severity.  It seems that McClintock learned to pursue that which excited her.  Luckily for the world of biology, that passion was science.  Her development does beg the following question though: is any part of required education a factor that stifles real passion for knowledge?  I understand that a range of subjects needs to be presented to adolescent students for them to experience all possibilities.  However, I’m not sure that required education does not “burn out” young learners.

Darwin Obituaries

Darwin’s obituary, as written by Huxley, emphasizes the reasoning behind LB 492’s partial dedication to the storied scientist.  As Huxley says, from his scientific work to his social conduct, Darwin is the “ideal of a man of science.”  It is Huxley’s writing that finally connects some of the key ideas that we’ve seen through Franklin, Darwin, and the survey discussed in class last week.  Buzz words like “investigation” and “devoted” evoke ideas of the virtuous scientist.  Thinking back on the class survey, I can’t help but agree that curiosity must be a requirement for the exemplary scientist.  A scientist must not only pursue knowledge, but also contain the inner motivation to do so.  He must have, as Huxley calls it, the “central fire” that represents passion in the pursuit of knowledge.  The Times obituary brings another perspective to Darwin’s history.  Full pages of university representatives, political figures, colleagues, friends, and family definitively prove that Darwin flourished as a social scientist and human being as a whole.  As these relationships retain such respect at the end of life, I believe it speaks volumes of Darwin’s character.  On another hand, the tone of the Times obituary is much different.  Acute observations of the funeral procession and extensive lists of the mourners allude to the methods of observation that Darwin spoke of in his autobiography.  In doing so, Times employs a subtle tribute to the great scientist.  
Einstein's obituary from Times takes a different tone altogether.  In Einstein's, we see a stark individualism.  Although Einstein definitely was an individual thinker, generating theory in physics while wearing wrinkled clothing, his individualism was remarkable and admirable.  Einstein's obituary focuses greatly on his sense of morality, quoting directly his thoughts on equality and free thinking.

Darwin: Continued

In the second halkf of Darwin’s autobiography, we again find parallels to the philosophy presented by MacIntyre.  Darwin seems to be pleased with his life, as he has appropriately devoted it to science, and his contributions and successes are representative of the standards of excellence he achieved in his lifetime.  However, he also admits that he wishes he had done more for his fellow man.  In class we spoke of human beings as social animals.  I think in order to be a virtuous individual, we must not only experience friendship in the Aristotelian way, but we must also devote time to philanthropy.  We must build friendships and contribute to the common good of our companions, peers, and family.  Being social defines who we are, but to me, it seems to thin of a requirement. 

Darwin explicitly notes the qualities of each of his colleagues and the lessons they have taught him.  It seems as if these comments are a lesson to his children on taking knowledge from others at every opportunity.  As social beings, there is inherently an exchange when two people meet.  I believe Darwin acknowledges and values such an exchange, as he seems to emphasize it to his children. 

The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: Pt. 1

          It’s hard not to read the opening sections of Darwin’s autobiography without looking through the Macintyre “After Virtue” lens.  Concepts of internal goods and practices appear quite prevalently, as Darwin notes that he “had strong and diversified tastes, much zeal for whatever interested me, and a keen pleasure in understanding any complex subject or thing.”  Darwin’s simple desire to become a better scientist seems to be his greatest virtuous characteristic.  He notes that favorable responses from the general public was simply a fleeting pleasure (an external good!) that did not trump his aspirations to build on the world’s existing scientific knowledge.  Darwin even notes that he “worked to the utmost during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation,” although he also notes his ambition to take place among established and respected scientists as well.  Although the latter does show Darwin’s acknowledgement of goods external to science, his prioritizing of the former establishes a good basis for virtue under the MacIntyre scope.

            The most interesting quote I found in this opening section of Darwin’s autobiography, however, was one that exemplifies what I believe is a virtuous responsibility of the scientist.  In speaking of his father and the suicide at the bank, Darwin says, “It would have been dishonourable in my father to have used his professional knowledge for his private advantage.”  This sentiment extends well beyond Darwin’s father.  I believe scientists often possess a knowledge that is vulnerable to disaster when it is communicated to the public sphere.  Therefore, it is important for scientists to avoid taking advantage of a public naïveté when it comes to scientific research.  Scientists who forge data/results to gain favorable response from the inexperienced public pursue merely an external good, rather than the internal good of becoming a good, practicing scientist. 

After Virtue: Ch. 16-18

MacIntyre's closing chapters begin to take a hard, critical look at the concept of work in the present.  What he says is mostly undeniable.  The concept of the internal good has been largely ripped from work in our generation.  We are told, as students, to avoid pursuing a career with the allure of significant income. Yet how can we avoid such decisions?  Most students fall into a large amount of debt in pursuing a career.  If we choose to switch our focus, we often must remain at school longer and accumulate more debt.  I believe the average person is not selfish, but rather that he is interested in securing a comfortable life for himself and his family.  When our current goals do not meet these expectations, how can we not desire a more economically secure life?
MacIntyre's views on justice as a virtue also interested me.  If we are to believe that virtues are simply a medium through which we can follow a particular set of rules, than that set of rules must be defined.  Yet, MacIntyre claims our "individualist" culture cannot reach a consensus on such a set of rules.  MacIntyre notes that our concepts of entitlement here are fragmented and illegitimate, as most claims of entitlement can be described as violently taken from native people.  However, I am not sure that realizing what the human purpose is could be much easier than reaching an agreement on a set of moral rules.  I believe our society has chosen to make an effort on a set of rules because it is easier than defining or investigating the purpose of human life. Some agreement can occur on the subject of right/wrong with respect to a set of rules, and some agreement can be made on the reason for human life.  I am just not sure if one is more reasonable than the other.