Chemical Education Today
Commentary
Why Should Anyone Become a Scientist? The Ideal of Science and Its Importance by Lewyn Li
Every profession has its ideal—in law, it is justice; in medicine, it is the sanctity of human life; and in politics, it is the good of the people. But what is the ideal in science? Why is it important to us and our world? And why is it so rarely spoken of by the scientists themselves? As we will see, the answers to these questions have significant implications on how we should train a scientist. More importantly, they touch the very core of our modern society and our existence as thinking individuals. Why the “Human Good” Cannot Be the Sole Ideal in Science Suppose we ask a scientist why he or she has chosen science as a career. The answers would be predictable: the desire to improve other people’s lives, intellectual curiosity and capabilities, and monetary rewards. But suppose we follow up with the question of why he or she or anyone should pursue science as a goal in life or ask, what higher purpose does he or she serve by becoming a scientist? We would probably be met with a vacant smile from our slightly embarrassed scientist, since nothing in previous training has prepared him or her to ask or answer these questions. And if we press our friend further for an answer, we would realize the unfortunate truth—the scientist does not know the answer and does not care. But what higher goal does (or should) a scientist serve, if any? If we review the three motivations of the typical scientist, we find that only the desire to improve other people’s lives indicates a striving towards a higher (i.e., more moral and spiritual) purpose, since intellectual curiosity, on its own, is neither noble or ignoble. Is that why we should become scientists—to improve other people’s lives? No, because scientific inventions in the past centuries have proven to be too ambiguous for us to remain so naïve. Vaccines have saved many lives, yet they have also contributed to the population explosion (1). Modern transportation has greatly facilitated the movement of people and goods, but it has also caused massive pollution. Nuclear research has given a readily available energy source to the world—a world that can now be obliterated by the press of a button. So for us to become scientists, we must look for reasons other than to better the human lot. The Ideal of Science: Understanding Nature and the Selfless Pursuit of the Truth Science embodies an ideal—the ideal of the human intellect understanding the order underlying Nature. Its value does not lie only in the materialistic benefits it can bring, but also in its philosophical and aesthetic influence on the human mind. It, along with the arts, shows that human beings can rise above the brutal struggle for survival and begin 20
to contemplate our existence on a deeper level. Indeed, the many clashes and syntheses throughout history between science and other branches of human knowledge, such as religion, speak eloquently for the ability of science to inspire the human mind to enterprises far beyond the physical world. Moreover, science, in its purest form, is supposed to be the disinterested, objective, and cooperative search for the truth, in front of which personal prejudice, vanity, and ambition should take second place. As John Ziman put it, Science “is a cooperative enterprise, in which the enemy is ignorance, not the chap in the other laboratory” (2). In fact, looking around us, we would realize that scientific research is one of the few professions that has truth, instead of the so-called “common good” or simply money, as its natural client and master. The Importance of This Ideal Why is such an ideal important? Is it too high-minded ever to be achieved? But this is precisely why it deserves our efforts. By being unattainable, they incessantly call upon us to rise above ourselves and become better individuals. For example, none of us can totally overcome the jealousy we feel when somebody else has beaten us to the answer—especially when we have labored for many days and nights on the problem, while our job, funding, and self-esteem seem to hang in the balance. But if we chose to consider both our colleague’s success and our relative failure as parts of the greater scientific enterprise, we would not only transcend our petty jealousy, but make ourselves larger, more mature, and better as human beings. On a more practical level, the higher ideal of science would also benefit the scientific community. It would make the scientist much more aware of his or her role as a seeker of the truth. Consequently, he or she may be more able to resist the temptation of sacrificing the truth, or any truth, for financial or career gains. This would improve the morale among scientists as well as the image of science in the eyes of the public. Furthermore, the dawn of a more cooperative atmosphere, where other scientists are colleagues rather than competitors, could only make scientific research freer and more enjoyable. It would also facilitate the free exchange of information among scientists, resulting in a quicker and more complete solution to any scientific problem we face. Why We Never Hear about This Ideal If such an ideal is so noble and potentially advantageous, why is it so rarely mentioned by scientists, let alone discussed? First and foremost, we live in a society whose “bottom line” is almost always short-term economic rewards. This has caused scientists, especially younger ones, to pay attention only to ideas that will help them obtain a reputation and
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Chemical Education Today
funding. Secondly, following this ideal demands a certain moral and spiritual effort—an effort that most of us are either afraid or unwilling to expend. Thirdly, some scientists simply do not believe in the higher ideal of science, so they see nothing wrong with the reality that, in science, “the coin of the realm is not collaborative generosity but credit—credit for the individual” (3). Lastly, the very notion of an ideal of any kind is often considered out of fashion in our present postmodern society. What We Should Do about This Negligence Because of the reasons cited above, it would be difficult for us to introduce or maintain any romanticism in our scientific endeavours. But I think we ought to at least try. To begin with, we should make the question of why one should pursue science as a career, along with other ethical questions in science, an integral part of a scientist’s training in graduate school. As a first step towards this goal, there ought to be at least one seminar during the orientation of a new graduate student that focuses on the philosophical and ethical aspects of scientific research. Furthermore, research supervisors should seize every opportunity to instill in their students a sense of the higher purpose of science.
After all, science is a human enterprise, and scientists are human beings before they are scientists. “Why am I doing what I am doing?” is one of the most serious and important questions in human existence, so no scientist should avoid asking it. We should face it as we would face any challenging scientific question—with determination, honesty, and joy. Acknowledgments I would like to dedicate this paper to E. Buncel of Queen’s University, who first introduced me to scientific research. I would also like to thank J. Ogilvie for our many stimulating discussions. Finally, I would like to thank the reviewers for their insights and helpful comments. Literature cited 1. Klepnner, D. Physics Today 1993, 46 (8), 9. 2. Ziman, J. Puzzles, Problems and Enigmas; Cambridge University: New York, 1981. 3. Cohen, J. Science 1995, 268, 1706.
Lewyn Li works in the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;
[email protected].
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 1 January 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
21
