So it’s been a very long break from blogging, while I work out what’s coming next. I’m now focussed on a new book, provisionally titled The Nobel Prize for Anarchy. My aim with this is to show that science isn’t what most people think: in fact, it could be described as entirely the opposite of what most people think. Scientists – at least good scientists – defy all the stereotypes. To get science done, you have to be willing to break all the conventional rules: in fact, anarchy is built right in: the very core of science is about overturning received wisdom, proving your predecessors didn't have it right - and that you do.
In 1974 there was an article in Science that asked, “Should the history of science be X-rated?” The author, Stephen J Brush, argued that the idea that the scientist is a rational, open-minded investigator who proceeds methodically, is grounded in the outcome of controlled experiments and seeks objectively for the truth, is "a useful one”. If young scientists were to find out what really happened in the history of their subject, it might “do violence to the professional ideal and public image of scientists," Brush said.
I don't agree. I’m not out to do any violence. But surely the truth is to be celebrated? The book will look at how real science, as done by very human beings, happens. And this is good science. It is the way progress has been made.
So here goes – I’m going to make the argument that science is a lot more rock ‘n’ roll than you might have thought: there’s drugs, fraud, near-death experiences, religious mania, hallucinations… and, remember, these are not the “crazy scientists”, but the successful ones. It raises an obvious question: are we missing something when we describe science as a “beacon of rationality” in an increasingly irrational world? Is it possible that, in reacting to the perceived threat from an “anti-science” lobby, scientists are in danger of cutting themselves off from the source of many of their best ideas?
What I’d really like to know is, how does science actually happen today? Most of the juiciest stories seem to come out decades later; so what are you privy to? I’m not asking for whistleblowers to come out of the woodwork, but it would be useful to collect some reliable tales of what fascinating (and maybe a little bit scandalous!) things scientists are up to, things that they, perhaps, wouldn't necessarily want the funding bodies to know about. If you’re working in science, or know someone who is, perhaps you could spread the word and put some feelers out.
I’m going to start putting some stuff out on Twitter too (related to this, not what I had for breakfast, I promise) that I hope people will respond to. I reckon new technologies can provide a new way to research books – it can’t still only be about losing hours in fusty libraries, surely?
Anyway, check back soon, and look out for the Twitter feeds (drmichaelbrooks). Let’s see where this goes!
Subscribe