1 The Ultimate Question
17
science, and were unwilling to credit that others with a different background
or modus operandi could produce anything of substance. This tendency was
exacerbated when the work arriving on their desk was from a little-known
author, and challenged established scientific beliefs.
Resistance to the heliocentric model for the solar system of Copernicus was
opposed, not only by the Catholic Church, but also by astronomer-scientists
such as Tycho Brahe. Lord Kelvin liked to make mechanical models to facilitate his understanding, and had trouble with abstract concepts, such as the
electromagnetic theory of Maxwell [7]. As we have seen above in discussing
Mendel’s fate, Kelvin was not alone in his opposition to a mathematical
approach to science. Indeed, the lack of success by mathematically inclined
biologists in getting their work published in traditional journals led them to
found their own journal: Biometrika.
Philosopher, Francis Bacon, the father of Empiricism, was influential in
his opposition to theoretical science. However, he and his followers were
dismissed as “bird-watchers” by the more mathematically inclined, some of
whom carried their own prejudices so far as to scorn the discoveries on electromagnetism by Michael Faraday, one of the greatest of all experimental
physicists [8]. The religious beliefs of some scientists led them to oppose
specific areas of science, such as evolution and geology.
Generally speaking, it is the younger scientists who are more receptive to
radical ideas than their older colleagues. As Max Planck once stated: A new
scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see
the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it.
It is now over half a century since Barber’s paper [5] on scientific bias
appeared, and one might think that attitudes had by now surely changed. It
is probably true that the practice of “open-mindedness” is more common
in science than in most other professions. At the heart of science is the
peer review process, whereby research submitted for publication in a science
journal is subjected to a critique by several anonymous “experts” in the same
field. More than one million research papers are published each year, and
reviewers are usually expected to provide their services for free. Rejection
rates are high for the most prestigious journals. Modern computer databases
keep track of how often individual papers, authors and journals are cited by
other researchers, and these data impact on scientists’ promotion prospects
and chances of getting financial support for their projects.
Science has become a very competitive industry, and scientists being only
human, it should be no surprise that some of them resort to “grey” practices
to promote their own ideas and work at the expense of their rivals. Cases of
17
science, and were unwilling to credit that others with a different background
or modus operandi could produce anything of substance. This tendency was
exacerbated when the work arriving on their desk was from a little-known
author, and challenged established scientific beliefs.
Resistance to the heliocentric model for the solar system of Copernicus was
opposed, not only by the Catholic Church, but also by astronomer-scientists
such as Tycho Brahe. Lord Kelvin liked to make mechanical models to facilitate his understanding, and had trouble with abstract concepts, such as the
electromagnetic theory of Maxwell [7]. As we have seen above in discussing
Mendel’s fate, Kelvin was not alone in his opposition to a mathematical
approach to science. Indeed, the lack of success by mathematically inclined
biologists in getting their work published in traditional journals led them to
found their own journal: Biometrika.
Philosopher, Francis Bacon, the father of Empiricism, was influential in
his opposition to theoretical science. However, he and his followers were
dismissed as “bird-watchers” by the more mathematically inclined, some of
whom carried their own prejudices so far as to scorn the discoveries on electromagnetism by Michael Faraday, one of the greatest of all experimental
physicists [8]. The religious beliefs of some scientists led them to oppose
specific areas of science, such as evolution and geology.
Generally speaking, it is the younger scientists who are more receptive to
radical ideas than their older colleagues. As Max Planck once stated: A new
scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see
the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it.
It is now over half a century since Barber’s paper [5] on scientific bias
appeared, and one might think that attitudes had by now surely changed. It
is probably true that the practice of “open-mindedness” is more common
in science than in most other professions. At the heart of science is the
peer review process, whereby research submitted for publication in a science
journal is subjected to a critique by several anonymous “experts” in the same
field. More than one million research papers are published each year, and
reviewers are usually expected to provide their services for free. Rejection
rates are high for the most prestigious journals. Modern computer databases
keep track of how often individual papers, authors and journals are cited by
other researchers, and these data impact on scientists’ promotion prospects
and chances of getting financial support for their projects.
Science has become a very competitive industry, and scientists being only
human, it should be no surprise that some of them resort to “grey” practices
to promote their own ideas and work at the expense of their rivals. Cases of