FIDELITY TO SCIENCE
What we should expect from fidelity to science.
My life has always been rather eclectic. One special area was my first major career in research and development with Eastman Kodak Company. I was originally educated and trained as a scientist, and I have always deeply appreciated all that science brings to the table. It affects so many aspects of how we approach life and business.
At the heart of scientific advancement is empiricism. The scientific method is used to establish correct and repeatable results. Peer review within the science community validates the methodologies and the reported results.
This process is of course dependent on the integrity and professionalism of every participant. On rare occasions, we have discovered scientists who chose to falsify their experimental data in the interest of some nefarious personal gain. The good news is that those instances have been relatively rare and typically quickly exposed.
As reliable as the scientific process is, in sometimes the very nature of science complexity predisposes some observers to a measure of skepticism. When other scientists find that they cannot reproduce published experimental results, the integrity of the original researcher is called into question. However, that skepticism may be misplaced when we simply understand how complex science is becoming. As the devil is in the details, biology might be one branch of science especially prone to complexity challenges.
It seems to me the answer is to keep moving forward in all our scientific research to see where it takes us. Let us be certain that every participant is manifesting the highest level of professionalism, integrity, and technical skill. Finally, let us understand the growing science reservoir enough that we do not jump to conclusions about the science or the researcher that may not otherwise be warranted. I like the way that Veronique Kiermer explains the situation in the context of biology (“Forum: Eureka Once, Eureka Twice” Scientific American, May 2014, p. 13):
“Laboratory biologists deal with complexity on a daily basis. Mice bred with identical DNA behave differently. Two cells growing side by side in a petri dish cannot be considered identical. In the variable environment of the cell, it is difficult to distinguish a change that is meaningful to a process from one that is unrelated. Working in a modern lab also entails using sensitive apparatuses, rare technical skills and biological reagents . . . which are themselves variable. . . . The need for replicating results is as important as ever. But it is inevitable that results obtained in one cell line might not exactly match those in another. They in turn might not be completely predictive of the observations in animal models, let alone human beings. The literature of published results is still strong. To keep it that way, the scientific community cannot afford to be complacent. It must pay attention to the professionalism of researchers and take into account the complexity of biology.”
Science will continue to be a dynamic reservoir of exciting new opportunities. Business decisions will continue to be predicated on those opportunities. To make smart business decisions, we all depend on each other for mutual integrity, professionalism, and technical skill. If we maintain those fundamental commitments, then we will all enjoy maximum benefit from these exciting new opportunities.
