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.