Pittfalls of pride?

                I believe that as scientists we have to be able to admit that we are capable of making mistakes. As scientists if we “hit a wall” in our progress we must feel free to say so or to ask for help when it is needed from other scientists in the community.  I think that beginning at this point is important and by continuing to seek the review of other scientists in our areas we will begin to minimize these mistakes.  Earlier in the semester we read about Alfred Binet and his initial research into craniometry in Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man.  When he felt that he was falling victim to confirmation bias he had his results double checked by his assistant and found that he was indeed confirming his own a priori beliefs.  This scientist knew almost a century ago what we are still struggling to figure out; if we cannot intrinsically be honest then we must have an external system of checks.

                Even with an elaborate system of checks errors can be made which could result in the arresting of scientific progress or worse the loss of human life.   We must allow that dollars will stop running the minds of scientists and sense will begin to be the prevailing ideal.  With the ability to say, “I am wrong, I was wrong, this is wrong.” We give our scientists the same rights as we would give to anyone else and yet hold them to also say, “I will keep working to figure it out!”  Professor Oyen made an excellent point yesterday at the end of class when she said that even the data entry assistant in the research laboratory is curing cancer.  Sometimes it is the proximity to the change which can influence the actions of the agents.  It is ideas like these which change the facets of numbers into the faces of patients and if we could implement a system similar to this then we might see a positive change in medical research. 

                Finally, we must as a society be able to heel our excitement of an advance and fully explore all of the implications of its administration.  Without this full review of scientific advancement we as a society will continue to see mistakes taken too far and lives lost which otherwise could have been saved.  Coupling this type of a system with an increased degree of transparency in scientific reporting we could see a reduction in these Type I errors which although not prevalent occur at an incidence rate which is alarming. This transparency could possibly translate into a greater system of scientific education for the public about research techniques and the implications of committing an ecological fallacy (i.e. Wakefield, Potti, McNamara, Matsubara, etc.).