How to be a Better Scientist

Andrew Johnson, John Sumpter, Andrew C. Johnson, John P. Sumpter

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351745024
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Understanding the fundamentals of conducting good science, that will have an impact, is the goal of every aspiring scientist. Providing a wealth of tips, How to be a Better Scientist is the book to read if you want to succeed in this competitive field.

Helping readers gain an insight into what good science means and how to conduct it, this book is ideal to read cover-to-cover or dip into. It includes easily accessible guidance on topics such as:

• What characteristics should a scientist have?

• Understanding the hypothesis

• Integrity in science

• Lack of confidence and the embarrassment factor

• Time management

• Coping with rejection

• Interacting with the science community

With its broad focus, this friendly guide will enthuse, inspire and challenge, and is an essential companion for all aspiring scientists.

CHAPTER 1

What do we mean by science and ‘being a better scientist’?

Scientists and the scientific method

If there is one chapter that could be judged as superfluous to this book, surely it should be this one! After all, we all know what science is and indeed what a good scientist looks like, don’t we? But when we asked a range of colleagues ‘what is science’, we realised how vague the essentials are to both new and experienced scientists. We invite you to ask those around you how science works? Or to put it another way – what distinguishes the scientific approach from other human activities? Answers we have heard include; ‘being logical, searching for truths, an orderly arrangement of facts and identifying nature’s laws. But these are insufficient because they don’t clearly distinguish what is special about the scientific method. So what might distinguish scientists and the scientific method from others?

Proposing a hypothesis

Most groups, clubs, institutions and individuals hold cherished beliefs through which they view the world. A scientist has a willingness to test a belief against the evidence. The scientist gets to the heart of an issue by converting those swirling ideas and heated discussions into a testable statement called ‘the hypothesis’.

Gathering evidence

Everyone can have an opinion but scientists have a duty to evaluate issues through evidence. The wider and more comprehensive the information gathering (evidence collection) the stronger the foundations of any judgement that might ensue. To paraphrase one of the great scientists of the twentieth century, Lord Kelvin, ‘if you can’t measure it, you can’t talk about it!’ The evidence gathered from the environment or our experiments is then used to test (challenge) our hypothesis.

Dealing with uncertainty

Unfortunately evidence can be (and often is) contradictory. This is where science parts company from many other human responses on controversial issues. The scientific duty is to support the case with the largest body (weight) of evidence. This may be uncomfortable. The unswervable loyalty of the scientist must be to the data, the evidence.

Evidence and science are commonly misused in two ways. First, some choose to ‘cherry pick’ isolated evidence that supports their convictions whilst conveniently ignoring information which does not. Second, some may attempt to avoid taking action by pointing out the lack of complete scientific consensus and thus promote doubts. Yes, science involves argument and uncertainty but, where action is required, we must follow the weight of evidence.

Coming to a tentative conclusion

There is often a temptation when looking at the evidence to leap to the ‘obvious conclusion’ – that somehow the data support a long cherished belief of ours. But be careful! We must always review as many possible alternative explanations as we can. Then we support the case where the greatest evidence lies but always admitting to a varying degree of uncertainty. That is why we do not use the term ‘proved’. We offer support but must acknowledge that further data may yet overturn our conclusion. With our own experiments, we design and describe them carefully, with the aim that someone else could repeat them and come to the same result. As more and more evidence supports a hypothesis, we must acknowledge that it becomes stronger. But this is still not truth or validation. Ironically, our only certainties lie in what can be disproved.

We would strongly recommend you avoid talking of things being proved, as being facts or as having been validated. These statements imply that no further challenges are necessary or indeed acceptable. That we are certain no new evidence will ever emerge to disprove our theory. But this would be a fundamental misunderstanding of science. We should accept the possibility, however remote, that in due course things may be overturned and replaced by a better theory. We will discuss the philosophy behind this in Chapter 3 on the hypothesis. Thus, although many of us leave school believing that scientific knowledge is irrefutable fact, it is better to view the world the other way round, that a small proportion is not going to be overturned (e.g. the heart is the organ which pumps blood round the body, the earth orbits the sun), whilst most will in due course be refined, altered or completely overturned.

Some have criticised science as being just another belief that is competing for an audience. In other words it should be given no greater credence than other strongly held opinions. This is wrong; science is not dependent on faith or conviction. It is really a philosophical approach to life’s many questions that submits its (tentative) conclusions continually to test and scrutiny. It is therefore a method whose results and conclusions are continually open to correction. As we shall discuss later, for science to function it needs its practitioners to maintain objectivity. By maintaining objectivity a scientist has a vital function for society. This objective approach to a problem makes science unique.

Now you can see why scientists can be unpopular! First of all we have the temerity to ask questions about cherished beliefs. Then, if we are asked to respond to a question, we don’t make a snap judgement, we take our time compiling and evaluating evidence, then when we finally produce an answer it is not unequivocal. Unfortunately, it is easy to be tempted by journalists, lawyers and politicians or perhaps by family and friends to give answers to scientific questions with resounding certainty. After all, we feel flattered to be asked our opinion, perhaps we want to please or even appear a superior being, dispensing the ‘truth’. Good scientists will always admit that some uncertainty must exist in their answers. Despite getting a ‘bad press’, it is hard to see how modern society could function without us!

Science is more than an activity

When you first enter a scientific establishment you may simply have to follow the orders and instructions of a superior and perhaps adhere to a rigid protocol. Whilst the experience you gain and support you provide is helpful to any scientific endeavour, the budding scientist must think hard about what is going on and why? If you don’t, science will be just another routine activity from which you won’t get much pleasure. If you remain dulled by this experience and fail to rigorously question what you are doing and why, your work will be uninspired, and your research papers won’t get much attention.

To many, putting on a white lab coat and carrying out a scientific activity which generates lots of ‘interesting’ data is sufficient in itself. In other words, science to them is merely a craft-like activity that helps to pass the time and pay the bills. If you follow more or less what everyone else seems to be doing, surely you can’t go wrong? Perhaps not, but science won’t move forward that much either!

What do we mean by ‘a good scientist’?

Is it about financial success or esteem?

A good scientist, as judged by society and a parent institution, may well be someone who succeeds in continually getting funding and support. Someone who is on many committees and perhaps even on television. All of this may be valuable . . . But this is not necessarily the same as being a scientist who has driven science and human knowledge forward to the greater benefit of society. We can evaluate research scientists through their publications, which provide a window on their efforts. Their views are there to be challenged. Many scientists are employed in business, government and charitable organisations. The esteem they can enjoy in their organisations will be from the balance and objectivity consistently present in their advice. They will be acknowledged for their courage in sticking to the data, or evidence, however uncomfortable that may be.

Because we care about science and its lasting value to humanity, our recommendations in this book will focus on preparing you to be the scientist capable of genuinely moving science and society forward.

How would I spot a good scientist in my department?

There was an ironic statement made a while ago that you could judge the prestige of a scientist by how long they held up progress in their field! In other words this is someone who jealously defended their own view and ruthlessly crushed alternative ideas, perhaps someone who spends time only with other grand and superior scientists, someone who is too busy or high and mighty to take an interest in you? These qualities are the reverse of a good scientist. So how might you recognise a good scientist walking down your corridor?

Humility

Some scientists can become very grand. As a world expert they look down on lessor mortals and strike down those who contradict them. They are convinced of the power of their logic and they advertise their superior intelligence. However, the wise scientist is also humble. First, they know they depend on the support and collaboration of others. Second, they are aware of their own ignorance and the possibility that their own theories may be overturned at any time. They are ready and indeed keen to always listen and learn. A senior and respected scientist we both admire recently wrote a reflective paper in which he stated ‘90% of my ideas turn out to be wrong!’

Courage to challenge established thinking

They do not succumb to ‘group think’ and may be seen as something of an awkward colleague as they insist on evidence before giving support. It is a natural tendency to want to support and buttress the thinking of the community, perhaps always assuming that your professor must invariably be right simply because that person is the Professor and your boss. But this attitude actually does science and your professor no favours. By not being shackled to some dogma, the professor could put forward alternative visions that could drive science forward. He or she may know that there are bigger or more worthwhile challenges out there than those currently preoccupying their community or company.

Able to see the big picture

Whilst science is about getting the details right and squeezing out errors, there is a danger that by becoming immersed in detail, scientists can lose sight of the bigger picture. They can lose the ability to recognise what is most important and focus on, or at least acknowledge, the biggest and most rewarding issue in their field. Seeing the big picture could also be viewed as getting less worried about trivial issues and mistakes, rising above the minor mishaps and frictions and keeping sight of the purpose of the enterprise. This could be seen as being able to distinguish between the scientific process and the purpose of scientific endeavour.

Accepts with good grace the falsification of their own hypothesis

As we shall see, objectivity is a key characteristic in a scientist. One of the most formative experiences in the scientific career of one of this book’s authors was the response of a PhD supervisor to work that disproved a hypothesis of his, one that he had been advocating in several papers over a number of years. To my surprise, after a short consideration, he readily agreed that the data disproved his hypothesis and heartily congratulated me. In that instant I realised what a great scientist really was!

Honest

It is not unusual for scientists to fall prey to exaggeration about the implications of their results. In the bid to attract attention, citations and, hopefully, funding, the desire to hype up results may be overwhelming. In addition, some scientists may deliberately underplay or hide parts of their own data which inconveniently contradict ‘the story’. This is bad for science and a very poor example to give to colleagues, particularly to the students who are working for these scientists. We shall discuss this problem in more detail in Chapter 5. An interesting dilemma here can be in the reporting of negative results. Unfortunately, they are not attractive to editors of journals and do not garner news headlines. However, they are much more valuable to science than at first sight and they also signal to the community that the individual is honest and can be trusted.

Makes time to encourage and teach

With the pressure to carry out research and maintain all the appearances of being a leading scientist, there are many excuses for failing to spend time teaching or passing on experience to junior scientists. Yet one of the best legacies to leave is the new scientist you have trained to think and practise good science. They do you credit but, more importantly, carry the torch themselves and pass it on to others on how best to do science.

Ability to communicate in a way that is easy to understand

Scientific techniques and equipment are complicated. The issues are complex and multi-faceted, whilst the results may be ambiguous. This complexity can lead to different disciplines developing their own unique language. It may seem clever to then communicate in a complex way to apparently demonstrate your own higher intelligence. Yet you will find that really good scientists are able to convey complex information in an extraordinarily clear and simple way. This clarity draws other people to work with them but, more importantly, it means they can disseminate their knowledge to the widest possible audience.

Permits open debate and encourages alternative views

For science to evolve and weak theories to be discarded, they need to be open to challenge. No one has a monopoly on wisdom, so the good scientist will invite ideas and challenges from all colleagues, high and low. This to and fro of ideas can lead to new insights. It is better that ideas are rigorously challenged and revised before they and their author are tripped up at an embarrassingly late stage, such as at an international conference! Questions from the most junior scientists should be warmly encouraged for two reasons. First, a new outlook may spot a mistake you haven’t considered and second, if they are to develop into good scientists, they must get into the questioning habit early.

Welcomes collaboration

Some scientists who have worked for many years in a particular field and perhaps built up a reputation can feel the need to jealously guard it from interlopers. New entrants to the field are seen as rivals and offers to collaborate may be rebuffed. This is not good for the individual or their field of science. Instead, the good scientist is happy to proclaim their ignorance of fields or skills outside their own and seek out those who have complementary strengths. Knowing that scientific problems are often multi-faceted, they draw in and welcome these other scientists with different perspectives. Those who have confidence issues, or are selfish or jealous, are less likely to take this approach. Seeking addi...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Author Biographies
• Foreword
• 1 What do we Mean by Science and ‘Being a Better Scientist’?
• 2 What Characteristics Should I Have as a Scientist and Am I That Person?
• 3 Understanding the Hypothesis
• 4 How do I Find My Way?
• 5 Integrity in Science
• 6 Lack of Confidence and the Embarrassment Factor
• 7 The Basics of Doing an Experiment
• 8 Time Management
• 9 Giving a Presentation or a Poster
• 10 Writing a (Good) Scientific Paper
• 11 Writing Grant Proposals
• 12 How to Cope with Rejection
• 13 Interacting with the Science Community Through Social Media
• 14 When Things are Not Going Well
• 15 How to be a Better Supervisor
• 16 Wider Aspects of Science Management
• 17 Final Thoughts
• Index