Today I met with one my all-time favourite scientists, TheDude. If science had groupees, I would be TheDude's science groupee. Over the 33 years that he has been in science, TheDude has contributed to our understanding of why there is so much diversity and how it might arise. He isn't, however, a one-hit wonder or what I would call a rockstar scientist. TheDude is a thoughtful, solid scientist, whose sum is greater than the parts. It is the cumulative body of work over the 33 years that has got him the reputation and recognition in our field. A slow controlled burn vs. a comet that burns up really quickly. If I ever make it to a tenured position, I'd like to be a scientist like The Dude.
My prep work (reading his papers before I met with TheDude) and the subsequent 1hr long meeting we had made me realize I have been remiss in my training as a scientist. Of the classical evolutionary paper/books that I know I should have read, I've read maybe five per cent. Why? Because my brain is small and the body of literature is enormous. I know it's a poor excuse, but frankly I find it overwhelming. And I think there is a lot of crap to wade through.
When I research an article for a manuscript I generally follow the trail of references that originates from the most recent paper on the subject. I do independent searches trying to find independent trails of references. This is because there is clearly a 'publication bias' in those reference trails. People cite themselves, they cite their friends, their colleagues but they leave out those that are not in their ingroup or they leave out references that show the opposite to what they believe. Part of this is the restriction on the number of references, part is because everyone else cites these references, and part is political.
When I first came to science from the arts, I was still of that mindset that it was essential to read the primary sources in the literature. So I tried to read one of the earliest papers related to my subject area - Wright's (1965) "The interpretation of population structure by F-Statistics with special regard to systems of mating." An excerpt is below.
Ha! That's when I knew I was in too deep.
How the heck, I thought, am I going to make it through graduate school if I can't understand this paper. But here we are...
Although I read it now and get some of it, I only know 3 people who could truly say they understand this paper and all of its subtleties - my PhD supervisors, and one other faculty member in the department that I came from. My PhD supervisor GeneralSolnGuru is truly brilliant and so she could not only read and understand it but she could translate it to the rest of us.
And yet this paper is cited by 1598. Did everyone that cite this paper really read and understand it? Or did they cite it because everyone else did? If you can't critically read a paper then why cite it? I mean how do you know that what the authors say is a. correct and b. related to what you are testing?
Getting back to TheDude and the reading of the classics. One of his points about what people read and cite was related to the idea that people want to make their mark in science and so they try to make it seem like their ideas are novel, but really they haven't read their history and the classics. He believes it's all there in the classics. But that there's no interest in knowing what's been done because you can't make a mark unless its truly new.
And while I think he's right. How many of us have the time to sit down and be thoughtful about our work? The external pressure of the system is to publish, publish, and publish lots and quickly. And it does result in sloppy science.
I think he's right. It's really important to know the classical literature. And yet I also know that it's important to publish. TheDude told me that he advises all his students to do whatever it takes to get tenure and then you can start doing really the science you think is worthwhile.
Wow.
The consequence of this is that my early career manuscripts might not be thoughtful as I'd like, but perhaps, later in my career, as I read more and more of those classics, there will be a trickle down effect. The slow burn of my scientific contribution will begin to bear a resemblance to TheDude's.
I asked TheDude for a list of what he thought were the all-time important classics and over the next little while, I'm going to have a go at reading them.
4 comments:
Yeah, this is a tough one. I totally understand the frustration.
A close colleague of mine died a couple of years ago. He was in his mid 80s and was a walking encyclopedia. He was truly one of the last scientists that could entirely master an entire discipline. Now, there is just too much to read; it is not humanly possible to keep up with the breadth that he had over his career.
I completely agree with the Dude. Do what you need to do to get a job and get tenure, and then take the time to think more deeply. This doesn't mean bad science, but it does mean that your synthesis work and historical perspective will come once you have a body of your own work to base it on, and the time to explore deep thoughts with historical perspective.
But now that I'm theoretically in the place where I can do this deeper work, what's the hard part? Graduate students, post docs, lab administration, university service, disciplinary service, peer-review, grant panels, etc. All of these urgent things take priority over the more important -- my research.
What it takes to be a Dude in science, truly, is someone willing to forsake everything else, sacrifice everything else. Otherwise, there isn't enough time. I think we all go through bouts of this, a few years where you are in the emotional place to lose yourself in the work, and other years where you need some distance. But there are those *super stars* that never take those breaks. IMHO, those people tend to have nice wives that take care of their families for them, or they don't have a family at all. From what I see, the former tend to be the men, and the latter tend to be the women.
But I'm jaded... and I hope I'm wrong. Please prove me wrong...
What it takes to be a Dude in science, truly, is someone willing to forsake everything else, sacrifice everything else. Otherwise, there isn't enough time.
Bullshit. Some of the most impressive scientists I know have well-balanced lives. This idea that science requires monastic devotion and singular genius is both false and destructive. Science is a craft, not a calling.
I agree with CPP. You should be able to read the classics, and everything else, at your own pace, while keeping everything in perspective. The best scientists do that.
Interestingly, the scientists I know who are monastically devoted to their science are also the most stricken by tunnel vision. It hurts their science because they have no perspective. It's all trees and leaves, no forest, no jungle, no planet.
Anyway I generally agree with TheDude re: people not reading the classics, there are no truly novel ideas. But, I would disagree in the sense that there are novel ways of testing old ideas (new ways that the Old Dudes didn't have). And then we find out novel things that even the Old Dudes didn't predict.
Roll over in your graves, Dead Dudes! Didn't see that coming, didja?!
re: your question about citing, no, most people don't read everything they cite. Sad but true. As a rule, I do, but I'm a total loser (just ask people like CPP what they think about me!) or I'd have a t-t job by now. =p
Seriously though, if you stay in science long enough you'll find that sometimes you have to cite a paper carefully for the parts you agree with, while discounting the parts you don't. And unless you're publishing in Compressed Glamour Mag, you can explain that in the writing.
In my field, papers are huge, and it's rare that you can find a paper where everything was done to an equal level of awesomeness or relevance that you're going to cite all of it.
Or at least, I'm not. My standards are WAY too high. ;-)
..I'm a total loser (just ask people like CPP what they think about me!) or I'd have a t-t job by now.=p
Ms.PhD I don't think you are a total loser. You say things that people don't like to hear in a way that gets right to the point. As a result people sometimes take it as a personal affront. But your voice is really really important.
I think that like your science you are more than your words (though I don't know you). If someone criticizes the words they are criticizing the words not you. Does this make sense?
Also CPP in a blogpost wrote how he was really excited about you writing a book so I think this must mean he respects you quite a bit. Sometimes I think CPP just blows air out his asshole.
Post a Comment