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.