Science Editor-in-Chief Scientists should embrace humanity

Scientific research is a social process that happens over time and to which many people contribute. But the public has been taught that scientific insight is generated when old white men get hit on the head with an apple or run out of the bathtub yelling "Eureka!"

That's not how it works, and it never has.

Instead, scientists work in teams that share findings with other scientists, who often disagree, and then make more improvements. These findings are then placed in the scientific record for more scientists to examine, and generate further adjustments. Eventually, the theory becomes knowledge. Throughout this process, these scientists are obvious, great people - and, of course, with all the resources and flaws that humans possess. This means that these people, and the context they bring to the work, have a profound impact on the quality of the end result.

Recognizing that scientists are truly human has become somewhat of a controversial idea. For some, the notion that scientists are subject to human error and vulnerability can weaken science in the eyes of the public. But scientists should not be afraid to acknowledge their humanity. Individual scientists will always eventually make mistakes, and the objective truths they support will always be modified. When this happens, it is understandable that the public loses trust. The solution to this problem is to do the hard work, to explain how the scientific consensus was reached: a process that will, in the long run, correct human error.

A fierce debate has begun about whether the background and identity of scientists can change research results. One view is that objective truth is absolute and therefore not subject to human influence; "science speaks for itself" is often the mantra of this camp. The history and philosophy of science, however, strongly oppose this view. For example, Charles Darwin made a major contribution to the most important ideas in biology, but his book The Descent of Man contains many incorrect assertions about race and gender, reflecting his adherence to the prevailing social ideas of the time. Thankfully, evolution did not become knowledge the day Darwin proposed it; it was refined one by one by many ideas over the decades.

More recently, pulse oximeters, which measure blood oxygen levels, were found to be ineffective on dark skin because they were originally developed for white patients. These examples (and countless others in between) reveal just how much work needs to be done to enhance the scientific community's and the public's understanding of the process.

A group of ironclad scientists will bring many of the same, preconceived notions to their work. But a group of many backgrounds brings different perspectives, reducing the chances that a dominant set of views will bias the results. This means that scientific consensus can be reached more quickly and that these consensus have greater reliability. It also means that application and impact will be more fair to all. What threat does this pose to the rigor of science and the value of discovery? Unfortunately, we are a long way from achieving these goals. The scientific community has had tremendous difficulty in building a workforce that reflects the people it serves. And now many U.S. state governments are trying to make it more difficult for their state's public universities; even within the scientific community, there is an effort to derail the idea that who does science matters.

Recently the slogan "trust the science" has been circulating. This framework is unfortunate. Because in this context, "science" is usually a snapshot of ideas or facts at a particular moment in time, and often from the perspective of a few people (or even one person). It is better to use phrases like "trust the scientific process," which implies that science is what we know now, the product of many people working over time, and the principles that have been agreed upon in the scientific community through established peer review and transparent disclosure.

Scientists should embrace their humanity rather than pretend that they are a bunch of autopilots who can immediately draw completely objective conclusions. Of course, this will require a series of efforts to both ensure that the science represents humanity and to explain to the public how it all works. But in return, society will get better, more unbiased science, which will allow scientists to immerse themselves in the glorious and messy process of always striving to learn more about the truth.