My fascination with science started when I was seven years old. I got my hands on every available science book for kids. In addition to simple explanations for multiple fields of science, the How and Why books included experiments that could be done using common objects in the home. I did them all.
On my 10th birthday I was given a 26-volume natural science encyclopedia for young adults. I read them all cover-to-cover before I turned 11. My Dad built a lab for me in our basement.
My roots in science were early and strong. Since earning my PhD in microbiology, I’ve served as a co-author on more than 200 peer-reviewed original articles, reviews and book chapters that have been collectively cited by fellow scientists over 13,000 times.
Science has arguably been the single most successful endeavor for the acquisition of knowledge in all recorded history. That is why I am heartsick over what has been happening to science in this country.
In recent years, a growing number of people are expressing disbelief and/or distrust of science. I’ve had more than half a century’s experience as a research immunologist and molecular biologist, and my hope is that people can be dissuaded from doubt if they learn a little about how scientific research is conducted.
For example, here’s how my first study was conducted and published.
As a PhD student, I spent my first academic quarter learning the techniques I would need to investigate cell-mediated immune responses to viruses. When I told my major advisor that I was planning to spend Christmas and New Year’s with my family he was miffed.
He handed me a huge stack of more than 160 scientific reprints and told me to come back with a proposal. I read and wrote one-paragraph summaries for each article on a yellow legal pad and, using that information, I produced a hypothesis and a proposal for my research project.
Eighteen months later, I was told I had enough data to “tell a story”. I prepared a draft manuscript, reviewed by me and the two PhD staff members in the lab. Two extensive revisions later the draft was deemed acceptable for submission to a journal. The editor assigned three reviewers with appropriate expertise; they went through the manuscript with a fine-toothed comb and returned the manuscript with over 30 comments and recommendations for revision. All of those were addressed in a revised manuscript that, with the agreement of the authors, was returned to the journal for a second review.
I was relieved first when the initial manuscript was not rejected outright, and even more delighted when the decision to accept arrived in the mail. By this time, two full years had elapsed between the beginning of lab work and the decision to publish. When the article finally appeared in print, I was pleased to see my name in print for the first time ever.
But that is not the end of it.
Once published, other scientists attempt to extend those results, including an effort to reproduce what was published. This is a main driver in the progression of science. Failure to reproduce the published results implies the possibility that the study was in error. In the best case, this would be attributed to faults in the scientific protocol; in the worst case deliberate fraud may be suspected. If the latter, an investigation would be launched into the laboratory that published it.
If clear evidence of fraud is discovered, the outcome is unforgiving.
The scientist’s career in science is at an end. This is extremely rare, but during my 40-year career in science, I’ve seen it happen several times. More often than not, firm evidence of fraud is reported by students and fellows working in the scientist’s laboratory.
Related Articles
More tornadoes and fewer meteorologists make for a dangerous mix that’s worrying US officials ‘It’s where I had my first kiss.’ Gems and Minerals Hall at DMNS will get a $30 million facelift Bright auroras on Jupiter are captured by Webb Space Telescope Moderna study shows immune response in older adults for a combo flu and COVID-19 shot Black community in Denver rallied to share flu shot experiences. The Trump administration stopped the study.This may seem like an arduous process, and it is. These steps are necessarily followed by all scientists. The tenets of the scientific method are held as a sacred trust among researchers. The full sequence described above requires years … not weeks or months. From start to finish, the process described above typically requires two years or more.
Fraud in science is thus not only difficult to execute, but to paraphrase The Day the Earth Stood Still’s Klaatu, “The penalty for violating these principles is too terrible to risk.”
The point here is that this method of pursuing science ensures careful study design, fosters healthy skepticism, and strongly discourages the fabrication of data. In short, you can put your faith in science and the scientific method.
D. Scott Schmid is an associate professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( As scientists we dedicate our lives to a method and can lose everything if we’re wrong (Opinion) )
Also on site :