If you're just reading this post, part 4 of a 5 part series, you might want to start at the beginning, where I rant about Skepticism, the dangers of knowing too much, and of course, politics.
Those can be found at the links below:
Part 1, Skepticism
Part 2, Science Ruins Everything
Part 3, Science Doesn't Belong in Politics
So let's get to part 4: Show Me the Funding.
This is something most people don't think about when they're not in science, and frankly, it's something you ALWAYS have to think about when you're actually in science: WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM, AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU GETTING PAID TO DO WITH IT?
Let's break this down for a minute: If you have a job, you are paid for your goods, services, and times. Perhaps you're a cook, and they buy the food and pay for your time to cook. The customer gets the delicious food. Win-win. Perhaps you're a doctor, and they're paying you for your expertise, time, and information. You're not necessarily exchanging a product, but someone walks out of the office with a clean bill of health, or at least a plan on how to get BACK to a clean bill of health. Again, you're giving something useful to the consumer.
It's business 101: You give a good or service in exchange for your compensation. You complete a task of some sort, and you get paid. It works for the bank (Where they keep your money and give you interest and security in exchange for the ability to lend your money out and such), it works for any actual shop, where you buy something, it even works for performers, who get paid for the pleasure of the audience. Everyone walks away with something: Compensation for your work, and a clear idea of WHO the customer is.
SCIENCE DOESN'T ALWAYS DO OR HAVE THAT!
In fact, a lot of science doesn't even have a real customer, in a traditional sense. Do you really think that many well-to-do businessmen are going to give up their considerable fortune to learn more about insect health, or why a certain weather pattern seems to be cyclical over 20 years? No, because no one really cares, or at least, very few people do. If you're thinking, "The government" as the consumer, you're still wrong...because a lot of the science that's being done isn't something that the government controls or even benefits from. Heck, if it's research into climate change, or pollution, or ecology, it can cost the government MORE money, in exchange for...what? Seriously, what the HELL are most scientists supposed to do for money? Beg? Because, that's what grants basically are. We're begging someone to pay for our time, and we're trying to show off that we deserve it. We're the really nice looking bum on the street with the extremely comical sign. We're trying to show the happy people that we're not alcoholic bums without meaning, we have SKILLS and PLANS and we can TOTALLY do scientific research, right? Please? CHANGE?
The whole issue of 'science begs for money and can't even guarantee success' is probably why many people think of scientists as outsiders, or unhelpful. I imagine that if you're watching tax dollars, funneled through the NSF(National Science Foundation) or NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association) pour into some research, you want to see meaningful answers to your daily problems. You're probably not concerned about the mating behavior of narwhals, or the ongoing management of the California sea lion populations off the coast of California...but NOAA, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act gets to spend money on those sorts of things, and it's got to be paid for by someone. Which is why you have scientists who petition for money for specific projects, or departments, in order to do the scientific research that we believe is so important.
So, why does it suck to be a scientist?
Because outside of R&D jobs, where you're specifically looking for a product to sell, you mightn't really be DOING anything clear cut for your 'customer', the investor. Sure, if you're making a new drug, your work creates a new drug. If you're working for Wayne Enterprises, your research makes the goddamned BATMAN, so you, as a scientist (played by the incredible and impressive Morgan Freeman) are actually giving something back.
Most scientists don't have that luck, and so from the day they enter their field, they're not out to just do their work, they have to find someone to pay them to do their work. It's as if you got a job as a lawyer, but the majority of your time you weren't actually practicing law or working on legal issues, but were instead writing carefully worded grants and research statements to your potential clients, in order to impress them, so that they would hire you to actually DO YOUR JOB! Then, when you're hired, you try to do your job, and constantly have to prove you're doing your job properly, even though there's always a substantial chance your job just WON'T WORK like you expected, and you might need more money, or might fail even with infinite money, and there might be nothing you can do.
There aren't too many other fields where you don't do your job unless you've convinced someone else outside of your job of how important your job is so that they pay you to do your job!
THAT IS A CONFUSING AND OFTEN STRESS-FILLED STATEMENT OF HOW LIFE IS FOR A SCIENTIST.
And, God Forbid, what if you don't have meaningful results? You can't give the money you spent back, and you can't undo the years of your time you invested....but scientists, who've fought for a grant, might not even get useful results!
Imagine if you went to a restaurant, and demanded they feed you. They agreed, you had to pay up front for the food, and after waiting for well over an hour, they came to your table with sheepish grins and said, 'TURNS OUT WE NEED MORE MONEY OR WE CAN'T FEED YOU!" Do you pay? Do you insult them? If you were at McDonalds and ordered a delicious Rolo McFlurry, and were told, "Another 2.50 will drastically increase the odds of you getting your McFlurry...in a few more minutes...maybe an hour. Not really sure. Also, it might be 2.50 now and 24.50 later, if this doesn't work out right. And there's about a 5% chance you'll never get the McFlurry no matter what you pay. ENJOY YOUR MEAL SIR," would you pay? I wouldn't. I admit it, and we're lucky that I'm not a good representation of the government, or a lot of important science wouldn't ever get finished, and we'd never make progress in advancing medicine, computer science, and physics.
Back to the metaphor of the delicious ice cream snack at McDonalds, you wouldn't nod and agree, you'd be PISSED. And the next time you went to a restaurant, you'd want proof of the existence of a McFlurry, or similar thing. And if you failed again, maybe then you'd just refuse to go to specific restaurants, or order specific foods altogether. Which, in the metaphor, is saying that you STOPPED FUNDING CANCER RESEARCH BECAUSE IT WAS HARDER THAN EXPECTED.
YEAH, WHO'S THE BAD GUY NOW? MCDONALDS? OR YOU?
One of the hardest parts of being a scientist isn't the science, the
people, or how it changes you, but simply trying to find a way to pay
your way and DO science. After years of expensive college, and working
your way (usually poorly paid and highly worked) through graduate
school, sometimes for the better part of a decade, you get into the job
world and STILL AREN'T DONE PLEADING FOR MONEY.
Why does it suck to be a scientist? Because you're a highly educated
beggar, whose fortune and success depend on luck as much as skill, and
even if you jump every hurdle to getting a job, getting funding, and
getting ready, you still have no guarantee the funding will get you over
the hurdles necessary to complete your research.
So, though it's a bit of a shorter post, and perhaps less filled with sarcasm than usual, I wanted to make sure I finally admitted something that not everyone knows:
It sucks to be a scientist because unlike most jobs, you've got no guarantee of payment, you have an amorphous customer, and you rarely if ever can confidently say you're SURE to get results. So scientists are left in the lurch, desperate for ways to pay for their work, their lives, and still have time left over to apply for the NEXT research grant, because this one can't last forever.
As they taught me in College, when a scientist looks for work, they don't just look for a job, they look for what funding comes with it. Show me, as they recommended I demand, the funding.
Part 5 soon! Links to parts 1-3 up top, and check out the older posts on the side bar, and archive!
5 Reasons it Sucks to be a Scientist: Part 3, Science Doesn't Belong in Politics
If you're interested in reading parts 1 and 2, they can be found at the links below.
(Part 1, Skepticism)
(Part 2, Science Ruins Everything)
Part 3 of this little series is quite important to consider, especially since this year is an American presidential election year. Coming up in discussion are hot button issues, like global warming (climate change is the more encompassing term, but less of a useful soundbite), gay marriage (which is more about general equal rights than just gays, but still, soundbite), taxes, abortion (HOW IS THIS STILL A DEBATE), healthcare (ALSO, HOW IS THIS A DEBATE), and education (BECAUSE SOMEHOW WE THINK GUNS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PEOPLE WHO WILL USE THEM). And for the first time in my series, this isn't about how science ITSELF can suck for scientists, it's about how everyone ELSE sucks, and it makes being a scientist hard.
You have 2 sides desperately vying for the vote, and so often they have to have a dialogue about important things, and very scary topics. I mean, WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING? IT'S SO SCARY! Drought, increased wildfires, lessened availability of groundwater, increasing CO2, methane buildup in the atmosphere, it's horrifying! And frankly, the more science that gets introduced, the scarier it gets. You stop talking about just temperatures, and you add in how it's contributing to a new mass extinction, SCARY! You start talking about how some poisonous plants are getting MORE POISONOUS, and how flooding might increase some places, drought in others, fire in even more, SCARY. You say skin cancer continues to rise, and the exact cause isn't known but COULD BE RELATED, SCARY!???!
LET'S AGREE NEVER TO TALK ABOUT SCIENCE WHEN WE DISCUSS POLITICS EVER AGAIN.
The problem is, we probably should talk about it. After all, Mitt Romney, the republican candidate, actually stated he doesn't know if there is climate warming, much less what could be causing it, but that he didn't buy into the official story (LINK, LINK 2). Sure, he's changed his statement, but that's understandable, science is confusing. I mean, I was pretty damned sure that I was made of solid matter when I was a kid, but now I'm apparently composed of protons and neutrons and electrons, and actually...mostly empty space between those subatomic particles (WHICH IS SORT OF SCARY, SINCE THAT MEANS I'M LIKE 99.999% SPACE BETWEEN PARTICLES, AND THAT IS CONFUSING AND FRIGHTENING). Romney's totally allowed to backtrack when he learns new information, so long as that new information is scientific, right? I mean, if you had to accurately take into account every last piece of science in every single field of study, you'd need...well, a friggin' doctorate just to understand the basics of what's being written in most scientific journals (which is probably why most researchers and professors of science have doctorates, probably).
Well, if you think that's right, and that it's probably just easier to ignore the science, you're wrong. Also possibly stupid. Yes, offense intended.
You see, science is something that it seems NO ON WANTS TO HAVE IN POLITICS....aside from rarely a few doctors. Heck, the New York Times wrote a fantastic article about this EXACT SUBJECT! (LINK). Because scientists are always butting in places and trying to make some point about 'apocalyptic catastrophe' and 'danger to human life' and 'the importance of accuracy and information', they can be pretty damned unlikable. What nerds, am I right?
But seriously, as we enter into an election year and a lot of the big topics of conversation come up, and especially those big topics in political conversation peek their ugly heads through, it becomes incredibly unpleasant to be a scientist. Mostly, of course, because no one seems to know the answers, and those that do are either ignored or insulted.
For example, in this next election the issue of gay rights will be coming up. If you can ignore the religious debates (which is nearly impossible when Mitt Romney talks about God more often than he dodges questions about his own family fortune or makes hilariously oblivious comments on his ludicrous wealth and Barack Obama needs to prove his Christianity 5-10 times a week, which apparently isn't working) then perhaps, just perhaps, you can get to arguments that involve facts.
Facts like how homosexuals are not choosing to be gay, and that their brains may be the cause of their sexual orientation? Or how we have science that shows the strength of gay versus straight families, and shows no difference in the children's success? Or perhaps, we can show the evidence for homosexuality being tied to other characteristics outside of the individual's control, like their birth order or genetic predisposition? Because...we CAN! (LINK, LINK 2, LINKS TO EXPLANATIONS ON WIKIPEDIA 1, 2 AND 3) The reason so many scientists are extremely vocal about gay rights, or climate science, or any other big issue isn't because they're all crazy, left-wing, secretly homosexual, hippie-minded, communist bastards....it's because they KNOW the science, and think that the big debates are STUPID. When you know the neuroscience, the sociology, the psychology, the ecology, the mammalian or avian behavioral ecology, you start to SEE INFORMATION...THAT APPLIES TO REAL LIFE. And it's quite frustrating that what you see evidence and logic and explanations for, other people see as 'inconvenient and hard to learn'.
But science isn't something people want to talk about. Science isn't something that people are interested in, often because they don't understand. If you want to know why, it might be because we're not even in the top 10 nations in terms of science and math, and are even further behind in biology specifically, but it's more than that....science is wildly inconvenient, and therefore, people hate it in politics. No one wants to hear truth from a politician, because the truth is scary! So, we'd far rather hear them debate healthcare in a simplistic, often wildly innaccurate way, because that's like watching gladiators, instead of intelligent debaters, and I can tell you right now that gladiators tend to be debaters in combat...since they have weapons, not words, and a shouting contest isn't won by reasonable debate.
So, back on topic, why does it suck to be a scientist? Most scientists are specialists in a specific area of a specific subset of a specific field. I mean, I say I'm a biologist, but I'm really an ecologist, or more accurately, I study plant-animal interactions involving variations in plant chemistry in response to outbreak insect attacks....otherwise known as a super specialized area of ecology, which is itself only a very small subset of biology.
But scientists don't just learn our specialized subject area of work because we also need a lot of background work. I took classes in math, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, geology, psychology, bioethics, and research design to get my biology degree, so I know a LITTLE BIT about a LOT of subjects, and that means that when something comes up in the news about science, I tend to at least understand the basics. However, most people in America really don't. In fact, we SUCK at science. We're not even close to where we seem to think we are. We're literally not in the top 10, and depending on the year, sometimes we're not even in the top 20, 30, or worse...at least in terms of science education, which most Americans appear to believe we're great at.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE IN THIS COUNTRY! And when they talk about how 'Those gays are ruining America, they can't force their lifestyle choice on me', scientists want to retaliate because someone knows the numbers understands the real facts pretty well can definitively show that those people are wrong!
For me, when someone is a creationist, I don't think, "Oh, what a pleasant person whose faith is important to them", I tend to think, "DEAR GOD THEIR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE SO MISINFORMED ABOUT HOW EVOLUTION, THE CORNERSTONE OF MOST MODERN BIOLOGY AND MUCH MEDICINE, WORKS!" If evolution isn't real, then what the HELL did we do to the elephant population through artificial selection, and how do those crazy bacteria keep becoming resistant to antibiotics? If you don't believe in evolution, you're probably not just misinformed, you're downright wrong about dozens or hundreds of other related pieces of information, some of which (like antibiotic resistance and how that works) actually matter to your daily life.
And when a possible future PRESIDENT OF MY COUNTRY tells me that global warming, climate science as a whole, might be lying? I think, "HOLY CRAP HE DOESN'T KNOW THE SCIENCE, AND TO TEACH HIM WOULD REQUIRE A BASIC UNDERSTAND OF CHEMISTRY, GEOLOGY, METEOROLOGY, AND POSSIBLY EVEN BIOLOGY." I don't think he's a man of faith, I think he's a buffoon whose knowledge of the real world is limited to studying politics and money, not people and their lives.
What else do scientists have to offer, that comes up in the news and media all the time? Let's go with the basics...like getting your children vaccinated. People heard about this big scare where vaccines supposedly cause autism, right? WRONG! In fact, that case ended up being a result of someone LYING, and creating a huge health scare. But it's still pervasive. The debate is still being examined by science because science wants to always seek the truth, but there is no evidence for the claims...and hundreds of thousands of vaccinations have been skipped, and many children horribly harmed, because the science wasn't listened to, a writer who misrepresented the truth was listened to. We listened to the uninformed media over the actual researchers, and we and thousands or millions of children paid and still pay the price. Or perhaps it's the fact that there are a surprisingly HUGE number of people who just deny that HIV is real, or causes AIDS...we can go on an on, talking about chemtrail conspiracies, or people who still believe the earth is flat, or again, CREATIONISTS.
Most of the other 5 parts of this series focus on the scientist themselves thinking in a way that doesn't work well with others, and to a degree, part 3 here does too. But unlike part 1, where I pointed out how scientists are often TOO skeptical, or part 2 where I pointed out that science can be a HUGE GODDAMNED DOWNER, in part 3, the reason it sucks to be a scientist is everyone ELSE.
Scientists can't talk politics because we're not talking opinions, we're talking facts. We're not regurgitating Fox News (which has been shown to LOWER instead of raise your level of information) or the most recent, and also highly biased, Huffington Post piece. I admit I get information from both from time to time, more for amusement than education, but the truth is that scientists aren't just reading the secondhand or even further along information, they're actually doing the research, reading the original work, and studying the facts without outside interpretations. We're talking about peer reviewed scientific research, long histories of research information, sometimes even centuries of background work, like evolution. The problem with being a scientist and talking about politics is that most people don't know the facts, and don't have the background to make it easy for them to LEARN the facts.
The best way I can explain it is to imagine a room with while walls and 1,000 blind people living in this room. There is one person, though, who somehow, through study and luck, begins to regain their sight, and finds a book about colors, and several confirming reports that show that the color of the walls of this room are white. The 1 individual, the scientist of the group, tells the others that the room has white walls! The response?
"WELL, MY BLIND UNCLE TOLD ME THE WALLS ARE PURPLE, AND THAT'S MY RELIGION, SO SHUT UP AND STOP OPPRESSING ME."
If it's not clear enough already, I'm an atheist, left-leaning, environmentally focused 20-something. So, of course, I don't LIKE the creationism, or climate-science deniers, or general misinformation perpetrated by misinformed or uninformed tea-partiers and politicians. But my point's not just about one specific belief, or one type of politician, it's about the truth:
Most people don't know, or even WANT to know the science. Bring the science up can make them feel stupid, or threatened, or confused, and in politics where most discussions seem to be more about how to win over votes than the actual SUBJECT of the vote, people try to avoid scientists. Instead of saying, "I should go read a book", they call scientists and educated people "snobs" and claim they're in a separated "ivory tower". Some days, especially when talking politics or debating hot-button issues, it sucks to be a scientist. Particularly when your peers, or the politics itself, isn't interested in being correct, they're interested in being believed.
However, for part 3 of my 5 part series, I'll end on a positive:
SCIENTISTS, PLEASE LISTEN UP: IT CAN SUCK TO KNOW THE SCIENCE, AFTER ALL, IGNORANCE IS BLISS. Listening to the rantings and ravings of under-informed liars and fools, while being ignored or insulted for being aware and logical is not fun, and frankly, it's a big part of why being a scientist can really suck some days.
However: I'd FAR rather be uncomfortable and informed than angry, ranting, and spewing lies and deceit, as well as hateful epitaphs and moronic bullshit for a political group who I only seem to agree with because it allows me the most freedom to be a hateful bigoted jackass, and control others with the same aforementioned lies and deceit...
(Part 1, Skepticism)
(Part 2, Science Ruins Everything)
Part 3 of this little series is quite important to consider, especially since this year is an American presidential election year. Coming up in discussion are hot button issues, like global warming (climate change is the more encompassing term, but less of a useful soundbite), gay marriage (which is more about general equal rights than just gays, but still, soundbite), taxes, abortion (HOW IS THIS STILL A DEBATE), healthcare (ALSO, HOW IS THIS A DEBATE), and education (BECAUSE SOMEHOW WE THINK GUNS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PEOPLE WHO WILL USE THEM). And for the first time in my series, this isn't about how science ITSELF can suck for scientists, it's about how everyone ELSE sucks, and it makes being a scientist hard.
You have 2 sides desperately vying for the vote, and so often they have to have a dialogue about important things, and very scary topics. I mean, WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING? IT'S SO SCARY! Drought, increased wildfires, lessened availability of groundwater, increasing CO2, methane buildup in the atmosphere, it's horrifying! And frankly, the more science that gets introduced, the scarier it gets. You stop talking about just temperatures, and you add in how it's contributing to a new mass extinction, SCARY! You start talking about how some poisonous plants are getting MORE POISONOUS, and how flooding might increase some places, drought in others, fire in even more, SCARY. You say skin cancer continues to rise, and the exact cause isn't known but COULD BE RELATED, SCARY!???!
LET'S AGREE NEVER TO TALK ABOUT SCIENCE WHEN WE DISCUSS POLITICS EVER AGAIN.
 | |
| "Ignore science? I don't even know what it is, but you've got a deal." |
The problem is, we probably should talk about it. After all, Mitt Romney, the republican candidate, actually stated he doesn't know if there is climate warming, much less what could be causing it, but that he didn't buy into the official story (LINK, LINK 2). Sure, he's changed his statement, but that's understandable, science is confusing. I mean, I was pretty damned sure that I was made of solid matter when I was a kid, but now I'm apparently composed of protons and neutrons and electrons, and actually...mostly empty space between those subatomic particles (WHICH IS SORT OF SCARY, SINCE THAT MEANS I'M LIKE 99.999% SPACE BETWEEN PARTICLES, AND THAT IS CONFUSING AND FRIGHTENING). Romney's totally allowed to backtrack when he learns new information, so long as that new information is scientific, right? I mean, if you had to accurately take into account every last piece of science in every single field of study, you'd need...well, a friggin' doctorate just to understand the basics of what's being written in most scientific journals (which is probably why most researchers and professors of science have doctorates, probably).
Well, if you think that's right, and that it's probably just easier to ignore the science, you're wrong. Also possibly stupid. Yes, offense intended.
You see, science is something that it seems NO ON WANTS TO HAVE IN POLITICS....aside from rarely a few doctors. Heck, the New York Times wrote a fantastic article about this EXACT SUBJECT! (LINK). Because scientists are always butting in places and trying to make some point about 'apocalyptic catastrophe' and 'danger to human life' and 'the importance of accuracy and information', they can be pretty damned unlikable. What nerds, am I right?
But seriously, as we enter into an election year and a lot of the big topics of conversation come up, and especially those big topics in political conversation peek their ugly heads through, it becomes incredibly unpleasant to be a scientist. Mostly, of course, because no one seems to know the answers, and those that do are either ignored or insulted.
For example, in this next election the issue of gay rights will be coming up. If you can ignore the religious debates (which is nearly impossible when Mitt Romney talks about God more often than he dodges questions about his own family fortune or makes hilariously oblivious comments on his ludicrous wealth and Barack Obama needs to prove his Christianity 5-10 times a week, which apparently isn't working) then perhaps, just perhaps, you can get to arguments that involve facts.
Facts like how homosexuals are not choosing to be gay, and that their brains may be the cause of their sexual orientation? Or how we have science that shows the strength of gay versus straight families, and shows no difference in the children's success? Or perhaps, we can show the evidence for homosexuality being tied to other characteristics outside of the individual's control, like their birth order or genetic predisposition? Because...we CAN! (LINK, LINK 2, LINKS TO EXPLANATIONS ON WIKIPEDIA 1, 2 AND 3) The reason so many scientists are extremely vocal about gay rights, or climate science, or any other big issue isn't because they're all crazy, left-wing, secretly homosexual, hippie-minded, communist bastards....it's because they KNOW the science, and think that the big debates are STUPID. When you know the neuroscience, the sociology, the psychology, the ecology, the mammalian or avian behavioral ecology, you start to SEE INFORMATION...THAT APPLIES TO REAL LIFE. And it's quite frustrating that what you see evidence and logic and explanations for, other people see as 'inconvenient and hard to learn'.
But science isn't something people want to talk about. Science isn't something that people are interested in, often because they don't understand. If you want to know why, it might be because we're not even in the top 10 nations in terms of science and math, and are even further behind in biology specifically, but it's more than that....science is wildly inconvenient, and therefore, people hate it in politics. No one wants to hear truth from a politician, because the truth is scary! So, we'd far rather hear them debate healthcare in a simplistic, often wildly innaccurate way, because that's like watching gladiators, instead of intelligent debaters, and I can tell you right now that gladiators tend to be debaters in combat...since they have weapons, not words, and a shouting contest isn't won by reasonable debate.
So, back on topic, why does it suck to be a scientist? Most scientists are specialists in a specific area of a specific subset of a specific field. I mean, I say I'm a biologist, but I'm really an ecologist, or more accurately, I study plant-animal interactions involving variations in plant chemistry in response to outbreak insect attacks....otherwise known as a super specialized area of ecology, which is itself only a very small subset of biology.
But scientists don't just learn our specialized subject area of work because we also need a lot of background work. I took classes in math, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, geology, psychology, bioethics, and research design to get my biology degree, so I know a LITTLE BIT about a LOT of subjects, and that means that when something comes up in the news about science, I tend to at least understand the basics. However, most people in America really don't. In fact, we SUCK at science. We're not even close to where we seem to think we are. We're literally not in the top 10, and depending on the year, sometimes we're not even in the top 20, 30, or worse...at least in terms of science education, which most Americans appear to believe we're great at.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE IN THIS COUNTRY! And when they talk about how 'Those gays are ruining America, they can't force their lifestyle choice on me', scientists want to retaliate because someone knows the numbers understands the real facts pretty well can definitively show that those people are wrong!
For me, when someone is a creationist, I don't think, "Oh, what a pleasant person whose faith is important to them", I tend to think, "DEAR GOD THEIR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE SO MISINFORMED ABOUT HOW EVOLUTION, THE CORNERSTONE OF MOST MODERN BIOLOGY AND MUCH MEDICINE, WORKS!" If evolution isn't real, then what the HELL did we do to the elephant population through artificial selection, and how do those crazy bacteria keep becoming resistant to antibiotics? If you don't believe in evolution, you're probably not just misinformed, you're downright wrong about dozens or hundreds of other related pieces of information, some of which (like antibiotic resistance and how that works) actually matter to your daily life.
And when a possible future PRESIDENT OF MY COUNTRY tells me that global warming, climate science as a whole, might be lying? I think, "HOLY CRAP HE DOESN'T KNOW THE SCIENCE, AND TO TEACH HIM WOULD REQUIRE A BASIC UNDERSTAND OF CHEMISTRY, GEOLOGY, METEOROLOGY, AND POSSIBLY EVEN BIOLOGY." I don't think he's a man of faith, I think he's a buffoon whose knowledge of the real world is limited to studying politics and money, not people and their lives.
What else do scientists have to offer, that comes up in the news and media all the time? Let's go with the basics...like getting your children vaccinated. People heard about this big scare where vaccines supposedly cause autism, right? WRONG! In fact, that case ended up being a result of someone LYING, and creating a huge health scare. But it's still pervasive. The debate is still being examined by science because science wants to always seek the truth, but there is no evidence for the claims...and hundreds of thousands of vaccinations have been skipped, and many children horribly harmed, because the science wasn't listened to, a writer who misrepresented the truth was listened to. We listened to the uninformed media over the actual researchers, and we and thousands or millions of children paid and still pay the price. Or perhaps it's the fact that there are a surprisingly HUGE number of people who just deny that HIV is real, or causes AIDS...we can go on an on, talking about chemtrail conspiracies, or people who still believe the earth is flat, or again, CREATIONISTS.
Most of the other 5 parts of this series focus on the scientist themselves thinking in a way that doesn't work well with others, and to a degree, part 3 here does too. But unlike part 1, where I pointed out how scientists are often TOO skeptical, or part 2 where I pointed out that science can be a HUGE GODDAMNED DOWNER, in part 3, the reason it sucks to be a scientist is everyone ELSE.
Scientists can't talk politics because we're not talking opinions, we're talking facts. We're not regurgitating Fox News (which has been shown to LOWER instead of raise your level of information) or the most recent, and also highly biased, Huffington Post piece. I admit I get information from both from time to time, more for amusement than education, but the truth is that scientists aren't just reading the secondhand or even further along information, they're actually doing the research, reading the original work, and studying the facts without outside interpretations. We're talking about peer reviewed scientific research, long histories of research information, sometimes even centuries of background work, like evolution. The problem with being a scientist and talking about politics is that most people don't know the facts, and don't have the background to make it easy for them to LEARN the facts.
The best way I can explain it is to imagine a room with while walls and 1,000 blind people living in this room. There is one person, though, who somehow, through study and luck, begins to regain their sight, and finds a book about colors, and several confirming reports that show that the color of the walls of this room are white. The 1 individual, the scientist of the group, tells the others that the room has white walls! The response?
"WELL, MY BLIND UNCLE TOLD ME THE WALLS ARE PURPLE, AND THAT'S MY RELIGION, SO SHUT UP AND STOP OPPRESSING ME."
If it's not clear enough already, I'm an atheist, left-leaning, environmentally focused 20-something. So, of course, I don't LIKE the creationism, or climate-science deniers, or general misinformation perpetrated by misinformed or uninformed tea-partiers and politicians. But my point's not just about one specific belief, or one type of politician, it's about the truth:
Most people don't know, or even WANT to know the science. Bring the science up can make them feel stupid, or threatened, or confused, and in politics where most discussions seem to be more about how to win over votes than the actual SUBJECT of the vote, people try to avoid scientists. Instead of saying, "I should go read a book", they call scientists and educated people "snobs" and claim they're in a separated "ivory tower". Some days, especially when talking politics or debating hot-button issues, it sucks to be a scientist. Particularly when your peers, or the politics itself, isn't interested in being correct, they're interested in being believed.
However, for part 3 of my 5 part series, I'll end on a positive:
SCIENTISTS, PLEASE LISTEN UP: IT CAN SUCK TO KNOW THE SCIENCE, AFTER ALL, IGNORANCE IS BLISS. Listening to the rantings and ravings of under-informed liars and fools, while being ignored or insulted for being aware and logical is not fun, and frankly, it's a big part of why being a scientist can really suck some days.
However: I'd FAR rather be uncomfortable and informed than angry, ranting, and spewing lies and deceit, as well as hateful epitaphs and moronic bullshit for a political group who I only seem to agree with because it allows me the most freedom to be a hateful bigoted jackass, and control others with the same aforementioned lies and deceit...
 |
| Not that I'm thinking of specific PEOPLE, mind you Mr. Limbaugh. |
5 Reasons it Sucks to be a Scientist, Part 2: Science Ruins Everything
The second piece in my 5 part series on why it sucks to be a scientist (You can read part 1, Skepticism, HERE) is about how science ruins everything. Now, just like part 1, you could make the opposite argument, that science explaining and understanding the world can be awesome, but this first 5 part series isn't about pleasant thoughts and happiness, it's about the simple truth that being a scientist can really suck. It's supposed to be dark, and depressing, but perhaps amusing at the same time. So, let me explain why I believe Science Ruins Everything.
Science explains the universe. At least, it tries to. There's a lot science can't explain (See: Why people like rap music....except science CAN explain that, it just shouldn't). But, the basic goal of science is to put all those crazy events and objects in the universe in order, and explain them. As scientists, we seek to tell you not just what happened in history, but why, and not just in human history, but in universal history. Why we have life on Earth, but not living on any other identified planets, why it took billions of years to evolve, how the HELL the sloth managed to survive for this long without going extinct yet the goddamned Saber Tooth Tiger wasn't able to make it. Also why pandas seem too stupid to get it on for their own survival. Seriously. We spend more money on panda sex than you would BELIEVE we waste on the animal equivalent of an impotent obese trashy frat-boy.
Scientists seek to explain the world, and actually have done a pretty great job. We know things, or at least have a lot of evidence for our beliefs (scientists aren't supposed to say they've proven anything, just continued to support a given theory with mounting evidence) and we can tell the world SO MUCH about how everything works. We can tell you what tiny molecules in your skin are, or we can explain the laws of chemistry that allow you to sound like an oompa-loompa when you breathe in helium. We can explain why some people have blue eyes and other have green, and we can show how to create new chemicals, even new elements with incredible scientific works...but the problem is, all of that information tends to get us to one place:
The land of SUCK. Population: Everyone who understands what's going on around them.
I'm a scientist. Specifically, a Biologist. More specifically, an ecologist specializing in interspecies and trophic interactions, which is a nice way to say I study how different levels of certain food chains interact and affect other links on that chain. You might think my understanding of science has given me a better understanding of the world, and has changed how I perceive nature. I don't just see a plant, I see what KIND of plant it is, and how its special structure might allow for defenses from herbivores, or how a specific chemical defense can be sequestered until needed and on and on.
But that's just it...I don't see a flower. I see an attention getting device that the plant is making so an insect will get covered in pollen and fly to another flower. You see a rose, I see a plant sex service. You see an acorn falling with the change of seasons, a sign of the oncoming weather, and I see tiny plant fetuses dropping, desperately clawing for space and luck to prevent them from being consumed, as the VAST majority are. You see butterflies, I see interspecies fertilization clinics.
As I said, science ruins everything.
A few years ago, I started getting very interested in studying how the human brain worked. I opened up a few books, took a gander, and started to change how I see the world around me. And it was TERRIFYING. During this time, I was dating a girl who was a bit older than I was. She was my ideal: Tall, thin, smart, funny, and I was so happy and fortunate to be with her, I thought. She even SMELLED good to me. That's PROOF that we were 'meant to be together', right?
Wrong.
Profoundly wrong.
Prepare to change how you see the world.
Also, prepare for a little bit of science. And maybe some funny thoughts. But mostly science.
See, I was thinking how she smelled was just an objective thing: She smells good. Bacon smells good. Facts, right? WRONG. See, she smelled WEIRDLY good. And she had this perfect, gorgeous face.
She had signals that I was picking up on, and I didn't even realize it. That perfect, almost intoxicating smell? Yeah, that was my body responding to the possibility of her and I having complementary immune functions, and I was smelling, as CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS, her tendency towards a strong immune system and symmetric body. (Check out wikipedia's much better explanation here) Her perfect face? That just happened to be that same symmetry I was referencing earlier, and the learned idealization of certain cheek and mouth shapes I picked up from television and social acclimation. Everything I loved was actually NOT transcendent and perfect, but basic, and sort of creepy.
As I read the science, as I peeled through book after book, and as I learned more about human psychology and evolutionary psychology, I realized that I might not be attracted to her because of who she WAS, but because she had the right face, hip-to-waist ratio, genetic variation, and even sexually arousing scent. And as time went on, and I became more infatuated, my brain was putting out chemicals that made me more and more attracted to her over time. I wasn't falling in love, I WAS BEING DRUGGED...BY MY BRAIN...AND GENETICS. Those manipulative bastards!
So, tell me something: If you were watching a movie about a love story, and you had the opportunity to hear 2 different conversations, which would you choose? Look at my examples below, think for a moment, and REALLY consider which you'd want to be in a love story, or a movie.
This first one is actually taken from a movie. It's from "The Notebook", universally considered the love story that makes every woman cry and every guy uncertain if he's allowed to like the movie or not.
"I love you. I am who I am because of you. You are every reason, every hope, and every dream I've ever had, and no matter what happens to us in the future, everyday we are together is the greatest day of my life. I will always be yours."
OR
"I am chemically bound to you. Our relationship has given my genetic imperative meaning, and I feel the need to stay with you in order to pass on what I inherently believe to be worthwhile genes. I release dopamine when I see you, and I feel the chemical associated with satisfaction and pleasure. I am therefore unable to make accurate logical predictions about the future, and thus see that as a sign of our permanent love and affection, and every time I see you right now, the release of positive chemicals is so strong that I am unable to leave you, which is technically the same chemical feeling that causes drug addicts to be addicted to drugs, and sex addicts to sex. I will, for at least as long as it takes to rear a child to their early years, be in love with you. Then, of course, the statistics say that I will become less in love, and far less loyal, and more than half of the time, we will divorce, unable to rationalize the drastic change in our affection for one another, because we don't understand the science."
You tell me, which is your favorite romance scene? See, science ruins everything. The things that made you gasp in wonder as a child become unromantic, unimportant. Rainbows are cool, right? The bible said it's a sign from God about how he's not going to go all 'genocide and anger' again. They're amazing.
"OH MY GOD, A RAINBOW. REMEMBER HOW INTENSE THAT IS? THE HILARIOUS YOUTUBE GUY SAW A DOUBLE RAINBOW AND PRACTICALLY CRAPPED HIS PANTS WITH JOY!"
OR
"WOW! Light refracting. I can do that with a garden hose. It holds no larger significance. They sell prisms that make more clearly visible rainbows for 50 cents at the drugstore. Woo."
Perhaps, then, something that IS rare? Something magical, that Disney told us could grant wishes?
"A shooting star? MAKE A WISH AND IT MIGHT COME TRUE! IT'S A SIGN FROM HEAVEN!"
OR
I know that science isn't ACTUALLY telling us sex is gross, stars are infinitely far away, and rainbows are tricks of light in our eyes. Science isn't telling us that the world is primarily empty, and no matter what we do, we all die, and eventually, so will our planet, star, galaxy and universe. Except...to a certain degree, that IS what science is telling us.
So next time you feel down, and you look into your lover's eyes, or a baby's smile, or a bright gleaming rainbow in the sky and begin to feel hope, realize that's just chemicals passing from cell to cell, you're attributing greater meaning than actually exists to something rather mundane, and you're going to die and rot while being eaten by grubs and microbes. Rejoice.
As I said....the more you know about science, and the deeper your understanding goes, the more life can be explained in a cold, often nasty, or revolting and tragic way. Science can take a man to the moon, but he's still just going to find it empty, lifeless, and barren.
Science, no matter how amazing and sometimes impressive it can be, can really ruin everything.
Science explains the universe. At least, it tries to. There's a lot science can't explain (See: Why people like rap music....except science CAN explain that, it just shouldn't). But, the basic goal of science is to put all those crazy events and objects in the universe in order, and explain them. As scientists, we seek to tell you not just what happened in history, but why, and not just in human history, but in universal history. Why we have life on Earth, but not living on any other identified planets, why it took billions of years to evolve, how the HELL the sloth managed to survive for this long without going extinct yet the goddamned Saber Tooth Tiger wasn't able to make it. Also why pandas seem too stupid to get it on for their own survival. Seriously. We spend more money on panda sex than you would BELIEVE we waste on the animal equivalent of an impotent obese trashy frat-boy.
Scientists seek to explain the world, and actually have done a pretty great job. We know things, or at least have a lot of evidence for our beliefs (scientists aren't supposed to say they've proven anything, just continued to support a given theory with mounting evidence) and we can tell the world SO MUCH about how everything works. We can tell you what tiny molecules in your skin are, or we can explain the laws of chemistry that allow you to sound like an oompa-loompa when you breathe in helium. We can explain why some people have blue eyes and other have green, and we can show how to create new chemicals, even new elements with incredible scientific works...but the problem is, all of that information tends to get us to one place:
The land of SUCK. Population: Everyone who understands what's going on around them.
I'm a scientist. Specifically, a Biologist. More specifically, an ecologist specializing in interspecies and trophic interactions, which is a nice way to say I study how different levels of certain food chains interact and affect other links on that chain. You might think my understanding of science has given me a better understanding of the world, and has changed how I perceive nature. I don't just see a plant, I see what KIND of plant it is, and how its special structure might allow for defenses from herbivores, or how a specific chemical defense can be sequestered until needed and on and on.
But that's just it...I don't see a flower. I see an attention getting device that the plant is making so an insect will get covered in pollen and fly to another flower. You see a rose, I see a plant sex service. You see an acorn falling with the change of seasons, a sign of the oncoming weather, and I see tiny plant fetuses dropping, desperately clawing for space and luck to prevent them from being consumed, as the VAST majority are. You see butterflies, I see interspecies fertilization clinics.
As I said, science ruins everything.
A few years ago, I started getting very interested in studying how the human brain worked. I opened up a few books, took a gander, and started to change how I see the world around me. And it was TERRIFYING. During this time, I was dating a girl who was a bit older than I was. She was my ideal: Tall, thin, smart, funny, and I was so happy and fortunate to be with her, I thought. She even SMELLED good to me. That's PROOF that we were 'meant to be together', right?
Wrong.
Profoundly wrong.
Prepare to change how you see the world.
Also, prepare for a little bit of science. And maybe some funny thoughts. But mostly science.
See, I was thinking how she smelled was just an objective thing: She smells good. Bacon smells good. Facts, right? WRONG. See, she smelled WEIRDLY good. And she had this perfect, gorgeous face.
She had signals that I was picking up on, and I didn't even realize it. That perfect, almost intoxicating smell? Yeah, that was my body responding to the possibility of her and I having complementary immune functions, and I was smelling, as CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS, her tendency towards a strong immune system and symmetric body. (Check out wikipedia's much better explanation here) Her perfect face? That just happened to be that same symmetry I was referencing earlier, and the learned idealization of certain cheek and mouth shapes I picked up from television and social acclimation. Everything I loved was actually NOT transcendent and perfect, but basic, and sort of creepy.
As I read the science, as I peeled through book after book, and as I learned more about human psychology and evolutionary psychology, I realized that I might not be attracted to her because of who she WAS, but because she had the right face, hip-to-waist ratio, genetic variation, and even sexually arousing scent. And as time went on, and I became more infatuated, my brain was putting out chemicals that made me more and more attracted to her over time. I wasn't falling in love, I WAS BEING DRUGGED...BY MY BRAIN...AND GENETICS. Those manipulative bastards!
So, tell me something: If you were watching a movie about a love story, and you had the opportunity to hear 2 different conversations, which would you choose? Look at my examples below, think for a moment, and REALLY consider which you'd want to be in a love story, or a movie.
This first one is actually taken from a movie. It's from "The Notebook", universally considered the love story that makes every woman cry and every guy uncertain if he's allowed to like the movie or not.
"I love you. I am who I am because of you. You are every reason, every hope, and every dream I've ever had, and no matter what happens to us in the future, everyday we are together is the greatest day of my life. I will always be yours."
OR
"I am chemically bound to you. Our relationship has given my genetic imperative meaning, and I feel the need to stay with you in order to pass on what I inherently believe to be worthwhile genes. I release dopamine when I see you, and I feel the chemical associated with satisfaction and pleasure. I am therefore unable to make accurate logical predictions about the future, and thus see that as a sign of our permanent love and affection, and every time I see you right now, the release of positive chemicals is so strong that I am unable to leave you, which is technically the same chemical feeling that causes drug addicts to be addicted to drugs, and sex addicts to sex. I will, for at least as long as it takes to rear a child to their early years, be in love with you. Then, of course, the statistics say that I will become less in love, and far less loyal, and more than half of the time, we will divorce, unable to rationalize the drastic change in our affection for one another, because we don't understand the science."
You tell me, which is your favorite romance scene? See, science ruins everything. The things that made you gasp in wonder as a child become unromantic, unimportant. Rainbows are cool, right? The bible said it's a sign from God about how he's not going to go all 'genocide and anger' again. They're amazing.
"OH MY GOD, A RAINBOW. REMEMBER HOW INTENSE THAT IS? THE HILARIOUS YOUTUBE GUY SAW A DOUBLE RAINBOW AND PRACTICALLY CRAPPED HIS PANTS WITH JOY!"
OR
"WOW! Light refracting. I can do that with a garden hose. It holds no larger significance. They sell prisms that make more clearly visible rainbows for 50 cents at the drugstore. Woo."
Perhaps, then, something that IS rare? Something magical, that Disney told us could grant wishes?
"A shooting star? MAKE A WISH AND IT MIGHT COME TRUE! IT'S A SIGN FROM HEAVEN!"
OR
"Wow, a piece of cosmic flotsam is being shredded into particulate by collision with our atmosphere. Woo."
Even the most important and basic human feelings and actions lose their meaning with science.
"Sex! Orgasms, sharing your soul with another, making love. It gives life meaning, it creates more life, it ties couples together in a way that anything else in life feels unimportant in comparison...it's a beautiful union, and an amazing feeling."
OR
Even the most important and basic human feelings and actions lose their meaning with science.
"Sex! Orgasms, sharing your soul with another, making love. It gives life meaning, it creates more life, it ties couples together in a way that anything else in life feels unimportant in comparison...it's a beautiful union, and an amazing feeling."
OR
"She is releasing endorphins, so that she is compelled to stay and raise a child with him. He is being rewarded for his actions by his body releasing other chemicals. Basically, he's spitting out of his ding-dong, and she's secreting mucous out her crotch, and we call it love."
I know that science isn't ACTUALLY telling us sex is gross, stars are infinitely far away, and rainbows are tricks of light in our eyes. Science isn't telling us that the world is primarily empty, and no matter what we do, we all die, and eventually, so will our planet, star, galaxy and universe. Except...to a certain degree, that IS what science is telling us.
So next time you feel down, and you look into your lover's eyes, or a baby's smile, or a bright gleaming rainbow in the sky and begin to feel hope, realize that's just chemicals passing from cell to cell, you're attributing greater meaning than actually exists to something rather mundane, and you're going to die and rot while being eaten by grubs and microbes. Rejoice.
As I said....the more you know about science, and the deeper your understanding goes, the more life can be explained in a cold, often nasty, or revolting and tragic way. Science can take a man to the moon, but he's still just going to find it empty, lifeless, and barren.
Science, no matter how amazing and sometimes impressive it can be, can really ruin everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)