The two poles of Science

Most people think that science knows the answer to everything. Why is the sky blue? What causes gravity? Is coffee good for you? A lot of it is true. We know where the colour of the sky comes from. We can make precise calculations of the gravity force. We know composition of coffee well. But, that doesn't mean we can usefully answer the simple question of whether coffee is good or bad.

The way I see it is there are essentially two poles of science. On one pole, which I shall call "rigorous", we have the rigorous scientist who makes a hundred checks before saying anything. What is said by such a scientist, which may not be relevant or useful at the time, can nevertheless be set in stone and will last forever. On the other pole, which I shall call "hot topic", we have research which is very relevant, but cannot say anything meaningful with confidence. Such topics often go through several 180 degree flips. Research doesn't have to necessarily lie on one pole or the other. Every once in a while, a discovery comes about, which is both relevant and useful. And then, a lot of research lies in between the two poles; for example a careful reasoned work with some speculation added to make an interesting claim.

At the rigorous pole lie most basic science, physics in particular. In my experience, a physicist is typically very careful about what he or she says or publishes. Everything is checked, and more experiments/calculations performed if necessary. If a physicist thinks he/she has a super result, but cannot be 100% sure, he/she might mention it, but will clearly list out caveats. This is done so that there is no loss of face in case it later turns out that he/she was wrong. Having claimed something big with confidence, and later been proven wrong turns a scientist into the pariah of the community.

A consequence of the rigor in such research is that often, nothing useful or interesting comes about. An "exciting result" in such a scientific community would sound boring to the larger world. Here is an example from recent research, taken from the journal Nature. This could be considered the most interesting piece of research from this pole of science to be published in the week.

Room temperature coherent control of defect spin qubits in silicon carbide

Pretty boring, right? I leave it for the reader to look at the abstract to see what the significance of the result is. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to apply it to anything practical, but that is what basic research is all about. This result can be used by scientists and engineers for generations to come.

To illustrate the possible significance of such a boring result, I will use a paper written in 1958 (title, authors and first two sentences of the abstract to tell you what it is about):

Infrared and Optical Masers

by A. L. Schawlow and C. H. Townes*

The extension of maser techniques to the infrared and optical region is considered. It is shown that by using a resonant cavity of centimeter dimensions, having many resonant modes, maser oscillation at these wavelengths can be achieved by pumping with reasonable amounts of incoherent light.

While boring on the face it, this paper is behind one of the greatest inventions in the last 50 years - the laser! The paper was a solid foundation of theory and experiments, on which Schawlow and Townes and others could build the laser. While initially called "A solution looking for a problem", the laser has found its way in many places like the bar code reader at stores to eye surgery to CD/DVD drives. Of course, this is the exception and a lot of good, solid research will never be used ever. Will the above Nature paper lead to a future breakthrough? Only time will tell.

The "hot topic" pole contains research we're dying to know the answers to. How many cups of coffee should I drink? Will playing music to my 2-year old help the child become musical? How can I boost my memory? Are cell phones harmful? What treatment is best for my back pain? Can we travel in time? Are there aliens? Hot topics largely tend to be in the field of health, because they are relevant and immediately applicable. Let's look at an article on coffee.

Say it’s so, Joe: The potential health benefits -- and drawbacks –- of coffee.

By Neil Osterweil
WebMD Feature

Reviewed by Jonathan L Gelfand, MD

Coffee may taste good and get you going in the morning, but what will it do for your health?

A growing body of research shows that coffee drinkers, compared to nondrinkers, are:

- less likely to have type 2 diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and dementia
- have fewer cases of certain cancers, heart rhythm problems, and strokes

The first few lines clearly spell out what we are looking for and the answer. However, a couple of lines further, and you get:

But (you knew there would be a “but,” didn’t you?) coffee isn't proven to prevent those conditions.

Researchers don't ask people to drink or skip coffee for the sake of science. Instead, they ask them about their coffee habits. Those studies can't show cause and effect. It's possible that coffee drinkers have other advantages, such as better diets, more exercise, or protective genes.

Being a reputed website, webmd gives the caveats. Many readers will only read the first few lines, and take home "Science says that coffee is good for you and will prevent certain diseases from occurring." The way I see it, the studies on the effects of coffee don't say anything useful.

A lot of people simply don't get it when told that science does not have a useful answer. They only want an answer - Should I drink coffee or should I not? What does the latest research say? They feel that they needn't bother about disagreements between scientists or anything else. That is for the scientists to figure out.

In my opinion, there are several problems with people only wanting instant answers from science. First, in not recognizing the overall inconclusiveness of say coffee research for example, people tend to forget the larger picture to staying healthy - a balanced diet, exercise, etc. Hot topic research suggesting autism (or other problems) being caused by vaccines has lead to parents not giving their kids important vaccination shots, forgetting the possible consequences of diseases of the past.

Second, in not separating the two poles of science, important cornerstones of science such as Einstein's relativity or Darwinian evolution get put in the same category as the coffee research. Yes, science does evolve, and theories do change with time, but quantum mechanics is not going to be replaced anytime soon, and that too by a flimsy piece of research that has limited backing. The latest claim that global warming is not happening does not overturn the might of evidence accumulated over the past several decades.

Third, a constant focus on the "hot topic" pole, particularly on issues that flip-flop frequently, for example "Is fruit juice good for you?", makes science look bad as experts always seem to disagree. This makes people trust everything less, even things that all scientists agree upon.

While non-scientists do make the mistake of not differentiating between the two poles of science, the scientific establishment itself is not perfect. Papers with grand claims get more prominence than they should. A controversy can be a good thing for a scientist, or even a scientific field. It often leads to higher visibility regardless of who is ultimately right, except when some work is so wrong that it needs to be retracted, in which case the controversy is a disgrace, leading to a downfall (see Judy Mikovits).

Personally, I often read letters to the editor pointing out mistakes in someone else's work, even if the subject itself doesn't particularly interest me. Why should a minor controversy in a field elevate it's visibility above that of other hardworking scientists who do good, sincere work, even among scientists? I think this is a result one of the constant tug-of-war between the two poles of science. While we all want good solid research work, we also want some spice in it. Here is a research paper, which although based on some thorough analysis, does make quite a few grand claims. Of course, the interest in this topic goes far beyond people in the field.

A draft genome of Yersinia pestis from victims of the Black Death

To conclude, as a scientist, all I wish for is a better understanding of the two poles of science. While I am not against research on the "hot topic" pole, I think we can definitely cut quite a bit out of it and focus on the more important things.