The Big Picture
steffi suhr
Monday, 01 September 2008 18:24 UTC
A friend of mine (not a scientist) brought up a very interesting point concerning the way scientists may: help? should? could? make sense of what’s going on with the world these days, and be involved in future developments. I will use his own words (slightly shortened – really, it is..):
I don’t understand this fear [scientist have] of dealing with the big picture (especially with something like ecology, where the big picture is what it’s all about — at the early stages of ecology (as far as I understand the history of the subject), it wasn’t regarded as a proper science specifically because it was looking at the broader scope of things. At every stage of specificity, you’ll always be generalising anyway, when you compare it to the next more specific level.
It’s great that scientists have established the vast complexity of the world around us (that’s the only thing — OK, main thing — I learnt from my environmental science degree), but to then say that the only way to deal with this is by studying only tiny parts of this whole – and hoping that enough researchers will do this and there’ll eventually be a better understanding – seems like poorly thought through logic. Hundreds of years of this stuff and you won’t be much further. […]
If people approached language learning like this (and you could argue that language is as complex as the people who use it and the world that it has to represent) they’d spend their whole lives studying the usage of words like ‘a’ and ‘the’ – or whatever (and they’d still not completely understand the grammar and usage of them) – and they’d never be able to communicate a word.
And if scientists – those who insist that only tiny parts of the whole can realistically be studied, that is – ran their life with the same philosophy of specificity and minutiae that they have regarding their work, then no doubt their lives would be in tatters. They would be social, psychological and economic basket cases.
You might even be able to argue that the atomisation of scientists like this stops them from having any say in the world. […]
[…] if scientists aren’t prepared to generalise, then you can see who will do it for them: the likes of George W. and other politicians worldwide. With their twisted agendas of greed and power.
I think one of the big problems with the world at the moment is that it’s run by specialists, and generalists are not brought in to balance things out, to stand back and try to see how things are (see the wood from the trees), to look to the future and start planning for it.
You have to convince me a bit harder that this ‘big picture’ idea isn’t possible.
The last phrase is aimed at my initial attempts to explain that ‘big picture’ (on the scale meant here) is just not how scientists work, that we start feeling uncomfortable if we have to extrapolate too far and make too many assumptions. In my mind, it’s that exact thing that distinguishes science from philosophy. Is this true? Can this change? (Should this change?) Are scientists starting to have a new role in society? Are we up for it?
-
Replies
-
Ok – maybe I can get this discussion going: the ‘big picture’/theory topic was picked up by the US National Academies of Science at the request of the National Science Foundation and is covered by a report, The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st-Century Biology: Catalyzing Transformative Research". A couple of random quotes:
For a variety of reasons—the fragmentation of biology into many subdisciplines, the rapid expansion of data and approaches that are available, and the difficulty of making connections among research results from apparently disconnected areas—it may be challenging for biologists to recognize the theoretical framework within which they conduct their work. Giving more recognition to theoretical and conceptual frameworks would likely enable biologists to make connections between their work and work in other subdisciplines and, indeed, other fields of science, inspiring them to rethink their assumptions to ask innovative new research questions. How much can we tell about the past — and predict about the future — by studying life on earth today? Examining how biologists might use different models or conceptual frameworks to approach these broad questions highlights the ways a greater recognition of these frameworks may help advance the work of biologists.
[…] Theory is an integral part of all biological research, but its role is rarely explicitly recognized. The living world presents a vast reservoir of biological solutions to many practical challenges, and biological systems can inspire innovation in many fields. The many ways that basic biological research contributes to medicine are very familiar, but basic biology can also contribute to advances in fields as diverse as food, fishery, and forest production; pest management; resource management; conservation; transportation; information processing; materials science; and engineering. Biological research breakthroughs, therefore, have the potential to contribute to the solution of many pressing problems, including global warming, pollution, loss of biodiversity, fossil fuel dependence, and emerging infectious diseases.
-
Hi Steffi,
I realise no-one has been on this forum for a whole year(!) but I think this is a very interesting and important topic that I’m surprised no-one has been interested to discuss! I can fully understand the view of your friend as I also came from a non-scientific background and I think she has articulated what so many people from “the outside” think.
Is it perhaps a testament to the lack of interest in the “big picture” that this discussion hasn’t got going? The current catchphrases of biology and biomedicine of “systems biology” and “translational biology” ring rather hollow when you realise how few people are interested in the links between science, the humanities and society. For instance, translating biomedical science discoveries to the hospital involves much more than R&D – you have to cover ethics, cost effectiveness, ease of use, law, social implications etc. It is the lack of big picture that makes people think that technology is alienating and modern pharmaceuticals require alternatives – because there is so little connection to the society that they are servicing! The recent rise of Apple and Nintendo over Microsoft, who make very pretty, user friendly technology aimed for social use is maybe an example of good “big picture” translation.
I actually don’t think that academic philosophy is that far off science – I know some physicists who could give philosophers a run for their money in extrapolation – but I do think society is something you can’t always rationalise, you often have to think creatively and feel your way. In my experience, philosophers, what with the pitiful spending on the humanities, are even more worried to do this than scientists. Personally I find some rays of hope in my music connections, who are some of the most creative and daring scientists/philosophers that I know of (I think being used to lack of funding helps) – getting the view from many disciplines seems to help. We had a recent SciArt discussion in my group in Edinburgh where we talked about the stereotypes of scientists and artists – science isn’t “cool, fun or sexy” in the words of one artist and art/humanities are just side-interests that do not warrant much time for most scientists. In my ideal world there would be scientists who are up for looking at the big picture, being interested in feeling their way as well as thinking, but until these “cool, fun and sexy” people are in charge of some funding and laboratories (that “some” is important) then there is no hope for any young things that dare to look at social implications of their science.
To clarify the “some” – I don’t think that we need to remove specialisation or restructure science and aim for universal interdisciplinarity as some of us may have wondered but I do think more provision for people who are more interested in the general approach rather than the specialised approach would help. How many generalists we will need to reinstate the balance, who knows!
-
Thanks for dropping in, Michael – I had indeed given up on this topic!
It is the lack of big picture that makes people think that technology is alienating and modern pharmaceuticals require alternatives – because there is so little connection to the society that they are servicing!
That’s a very interesting point, and a very important one. Do you think if we could make (and explain) the connections to society, people would be less inclined to buy into said alternatives?
-
Thanks for the welcome and apologies for the slightly verbose first post – I was just excited to find this topic!
I’m not sure I worded the point all that well – I meant more that the concentration upon molecular medicine and general mechanisms of disease does not take into account the psycho-social, epidemiological or public health issues that most medical schools promote to their students to encourage “big picture” thinking about medical practice. There has always been this idea to treat the “whole patient rather than just the disease” in medicine and clinical research, but I think this may be a more difficult concept to translate to basic biomedical research.
In other words, clinical staff have these fantastic and extremely complex methods to control disease course with drugs, but that is not going to treat the whole patient, who will have various social and personal issues relating to the disease course. There are mainstream clinical ways to deal with this, such as psycho-social analysis, psychiatry, occupational therapy, etc. but the links to basic science are not as well developed or funded as generic molecular medicine. Perhaps future research into personalised diagnosis and treatment and neuro-psychology will help?
People seem to turn to alternatives when they don’t think these drugs are working and some (perfectly sane) people believe some of these alternatives do something – whether this is true or not, I think medical research will need to look at the big picture to find out why people feel the need to turn to alternatives and how basic biomedical research can take into account and help reduce these needs.
Was this the general idea you were interested in discussing or am I on the wrong track!?
-
