One of the blog posts that caught my eye after I got back from Tristan was this entry by The EEB & Flow, wherein they take (much deserved) shots at “creation scientists”, in particular their attempt to define a scientist in a way that excluded people pushing a pro-creationism agenda under the guise of science. In their table entitled “How to know if you are doing science”, they list four criteria by which scientists should be defined:
- Publishing peer-reviewed papers
- Being asked to review papers
- Securing research funding
- Training students
It is with this list that I take umbrage, and with which I disagree. This is not “how to know if you are doing science”, but “how to know if you are an academic scientist” which, let’s be honest, is only a subsection of scientific endeavour, and a relatively recent one at that. It’s also one to which an increasing number of researchers don’t aspire.
The terms “academic”, “scientist”, and “researcher” are often thrown about as though they are equivalent, when in fact they are like матрёшка, the nesting Russian dolls. Pardon my pedantry, but I think it’s important to know that these differ, and how.
Most broadly, a researcher is engaged in a line of inquiry. This includes biographers, art historians, sociologists, linguists, economists, and many, many more. A subset within this group are the academics, which are researchers employed by the academy (usually a university, college, or other school). Scientists are those, within and outside the academy, who are researchers in a scientific field (however one chooses to define the scope of those fields; a post for another day). Though the differences may appear subtle, I assure you they are not without meaning or importance. To suggest otherwise demeans all of us engaged in the pursuit of knowledge.
I work for an environmental NGO. I am a researcher. I am a scientist. I am not an academic.
Taking the list of four supposed requirements to be graced with the moniker of “scientist”, I find fault with each of them. First, that a scientist must publish, and be asked to review peer-reviewed papers. For better or worse, this is the mechanism by which we, as a scientific community, have largely chosen to assess merit and progress. Again, whether this broken system is the best/most appropriate/only way to do so is a topic for another day. But it excludes the foot-soldiers on the ground doing a lot of the actual work – technicians and research assistants. “But!” I hear some cry, “They are simply following the instructions of a scientist!” Well done on demoting these people to the role of mindless automatons. Suggesting that they have no independent thought, no ability to find solutions to problems, or to pose unique and important questions is disingenuous, and placing them in a supposedly lower class of “technician” or “field assistant” absent of the word scientist reinforces the strongly hierarchical norms of our profession. These people are scientists.
We now come to research funding, that fabled mystical land. As above, technicians and field assistants (who, you’ll recall, are also scientists) aren’t expected to secure research funding. Similarly, some scientists in “industry” (oh, what a wonderfully nebulous term!), in government, and at NGOs are expected to deliver the organization’s scientific program using internal funding. This is not to say that scientists in these organizations do not, cannot, and should not pursue external funding, but that it’s not necessarily a requirement of their jobs. But “securing research funding” is sufficiently vague and broad to include meeting with one’s boss to pitch a project, and having it approved, though the typical expectation is that “secure research funding” means a competitive, often external, process.
Lastly, we come to the supposed criterion with which I disagree the most – scientists must train students. Hello there, small-world view! Training students is not a part of my job (though it’s not prohibited, either). The same can be said of scientists in industry and in government. The question of whether there are “too many” PhDs (or other graduate students) has been asked frequently (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here are just a few examples), and there are no signs that it will slow down. Even though we, as a community, have been shouting from the rooftops that the days of PhD to postdoc to tenure-track position are largely over, that progression is still the dominant narrative to which graduate students subscribe. “But!”, some cry, “The universities need to provide/are providing them with the skills necessary to succeed outside academia!”. When immersed in a research lab “doing academia” for 4+ years, a few hour-long workshops to present alternative careers isn’t going to make a difference. Now, I know that some PIs work at the interface between academia and government/industry/NGOs, and that their students might have a slightly different experience, but they are probably in the minority. Because “number of students/graduated students” is another criterion against which “success” is measured, they are continually recruited, emerge in their late 20s or early 30s with burdensome debt, having worked for poor salaries (and living with the consequences thereof), and face an abysmal job market. The point of this digression is that recruiting and supervising students isn’t required of, or necessarily good for, science.
Taken together, these four points, while perhaps important for academics are not necessarily the same for scientists, or indeed researchers. The conflation of these three labels is found frequently in media stories, blog posts, and other discussions, particularly those directed at academics. So please remember that I am a scientist, there are other scientists outside the ivory tower, and we’re not necessarily the same.
The Lab and Field 
Very nice piece. I would also add that much of your argument holds true for academic researchers who are focused on applied research. While many (not all) are involved in seeking research funding, they rarely teach students (via regular college classes) and almost never publish journal articles. The do, however, produce some incredible and groundbreaking research that has near immediate real-world impact. I worked within a university based research institute for 7 years and I think many of the great people I worked with would take issue with the four point criteria as well.
Nice post! I agree wholeheartedly, and would also add that there’s no reason students shouldn’t be considered scientists, either. A PhD doesn’t magically turn one into a ‘real’ scientist. As a graduate student, I have published papers and trained other students, but I haven’t yet been asked to review a paper or needed to secure my own research funding. I consider myself a scientist, and I consider the undergraduate students who have done summer research projects (science!) with me to be scientists.
Worth noting that, among many other greats, Charles Darwin & Gregor Mendel do not qualify as scientists under The EEB & Flow definition. Okay, then.
Excellent point. Darwin funded himself. Mendel I suppose was supported by donations (I guess at least some voluntary?) to the abbey.
People with curious minds will make more important contributions than grant writers and traditional career path followers.
Darwin pubished and read copiously and you might consider some of his many contacts by mail his students?. but because mendel’s published article remained obscure, his result had no effect on the field till devries etal rediscovered it.
Great post, Alex! I missed the original EEB & Flow post until now as well. I understand that the intention of that one was to take down the Creation “Scientists” in the piece, but in the process, and by coming up with such a ridiculously limited definition of “scientist”, they managed to nuke a huge portion of the scientific community along with the target group. “Scientist” is not a synonym for “high-roller research Professor”. I much prefer your definition, as, I suspect, would all the undergraduate student scientists and amateur naturalist scientists and non-teaching museum scientists and retired-but-still-active scientists I know.
Nice post Alex… I fall into your all three of your nested dolls, but don think those who are not like me are not scientists, I definitley think there are many scientists outside academia. And within academia there are professors who, for one reason or another, stop doing research etc…. So not all academics in science faculties are even active scientists (especially if they go into admitstraion.. But what motivates people to go to the admin route is the topic for another post, as you say. Looking forward to a post on “what is science?” 😉
Pingback: Recommended reads #44 | Small Pond Science
Perhaps the standard academic method of Publish and Peer review isn’t the only valid method, but I definitely think that publishing your methods and reviewing others in some form is key to modern western science. Mere curiousity and discovery as an individual does not define this cultural phenomenon and will not grow in the same way.
So if there were only ‘foot soldiers’ curiously getting results but not partaking in a system of publish and review on their own, modern western science wouldn’t have happened.
As far as training students, again i don’t think this needs to be done in academia, but the new generation of scientists have to get their start somewhere. There must be some mechanism for working scientists to inspire and guide the next generation, either by personal contact or publishing accessible peices.
So I ask, what is the mechanism of communicating results and broad review for people doing science in industry and government? and is it integrated in anyway with the academic system?
Hi Barry,
I’m not saying that there should be “only foot soldiers” collecting data, with no way of disseminating it, but more often than not, technical staff are hired to perform analyses, or conduct field work, and the “writing up” falls to someone else (often the person who hired them).
@barrygoldman1 “So I ask, what is the mechanism of communicating results and broad review for people doing science in industry and government? and is it integrated in anyway with the academic system?”
Great question. In my area, environmental consulting, the short answer is: there is no formal, generally-accepted mechanism for review and publication.
Sometimes it works like this. The work is communicated to the client as a technical report. The client’s technical and scientific staff review the material internally, and typically submit it as documentation to obtain development approvals. It may then be reviewed by government agency scientists, who may request revisions or additional work. If the work becomes publicly available, it may occur when/if there is a hearing on a development application, where the research (such as it may be) becomes part of the grey literature.
It is quite uncommon for the work, or any part of it, to be published in the primary literature. Mostly I think this is because it tends to be routine and not worth publishing in journals, which are intended to publish new advances in bite-sized pieces, but the client may also veto that idea if it is considered damaging to the client’s interests — clearly a very bad thing. Governments could improve this arrangement greatly by having consultants submit the environmental studies such as enviromental assessments directly to an independent agency charged with administering the work, reviewing and archiving the reports in a public repository.
The really sad thing is that there is an immense amount of perhaps routine but highly useful — even historically critical — environmental data and analysis that eventually gets chucked out under the current “system.” Much of this work can never be replaced because of human developments and changes to the original study areas.
And yes, those who do the work are real scientists, doing science according to accepted scientific protocols. They train “students” (their employees and colleagues), and secure funding. It’s the publication element (peer review and publication) that is not adequately addressed by the existing “system.” To a considerable degree, this is due to the present journal structure, and the fact that the scientists report to private interests, not an independent body.
Pingback: Morsels For The Mind – 16/01/2015 › Six Incredible Things Before Breakfast
Pingback: FAQ, and answers thereto #3 | The Lab and Field
Pingback: Now accepting submissions: CrapWildlifeVolunteerJobs.tumblr.com | The Lab and Field
Pingback: FAQ, and answers thereto #4 | The Lab and Field
Pingback: 2015 by the numbers | The Lab and Field
Pingback: Landing an academic job is like an albatross | The Lab and Field
Pingback: I am not an academic (for now) | The Lab and Field
Very nice reflection. In the end, it all boils down to the strange compulsion that people feel to categorize everything, including other people.