Voices From The Community
Understanding the modern scientist
Story by Janet Harvey/Illustration by Veer
Almost every day we hear about new research studies offering the hope of treatments for conditions such as cancer and arthritis. Who are the scientists behind these studies? Does it matter?
Every issue of this magazine introduces readers to a number of researchers in the health and biomedical field, and provides a glimpse of the work they do. But who are these scientists? What makes them tick? And how do today's scientists differ from the scientists of the past? Harvard historian of science Dr. Steven Shapin offers some answers in his latest book, The Scientific Life.
"In past centuries, there was more of a conception of scientists as natural philosophers," he explains. "They were seen as pursuing a calling—the study of God's creations—and thus were viewed as morally superior and sometimes as divinely-inspired geniuses."
That notion was in decline by the end of the 19th century, according to Dr. Shapin. A number of factors were at work. As society's understanding of nature became more removed from the influence of religion and spirituality, the idea of scientists as people who performed morally uplifting work also tended to disappear. The notion of scientist as genius declined with the rise of the scientific method, a mechanical means for producing and evaluating scientific knowledge. Scientists are now viewed as meticulous and systematic, rather than inspired and morally superior. In modern times, science has evolved into a job that comes with a paycheque, as opposed to a "calling" financed by people out of their own pockets, or supported by monarchs and other patrons.
What has taken the place of this historic view of the scientist, however, is less clear. In today's society, no one particular type of person becomes a scientist. In fact, the only trait common to scientists may be an intense fascination with determining how things work.
In spite of the shift away from the view of scientists as noble, some part of this perception remains. Witness the outrage whenever scientific fraud is discovered—when, for example, a South Korean researcher's claim to have successfully cloned human embryos was found to be false. "The very fact of this moral outrage is a sign that we expect scientists to tell the truth," explains Dr. Shapin. "Integrity is still supposed to come with the territory." In fact, all research relies on the integrity of individual scientists, because only a small proportion of experiments will ever be replicated. Scientists can't learn how things work if they falsify, fudge, or distort. "This is why the question of who is the modern scientist is important," says Dr. Shapin. "When we want to know whether information is reliable, we often seek to know who speaks for that knowledge—is it a trusted spokesperson? Our trust in scientists and in the institutions they represent will always be essential."
Dr. Shapin's knowledge of modern science comes partly from his own experience. After completing a degree in biology followed by some post-graduate genetics, he switched gears entirely to pursue studies in the history of science. What made him decide he wasn't a scientist himself? "I was training to be a scientist but found I was much more interested in thinking about science than in doing it. In science, you have to love the process of going into the lab and doing experiments—but what I loved was the scientific ideas, and trying to understand the flow of science in history and the relations between science and other forms of culture. I was always more of a humanist and I found the history of science a very satisfying field."