When you see two teams you don’t know playing a sport or watch a movie for the first time, you will often take sides and cheer for a specific team or character to win. Taking sides is a fundamental human trait. Of course, we are not here to discuss psychology or social sciences. Instead, I aim to tackle the idea of taking sides and extremes in natural science, particularly biology.
To clarify, I am not discussing the results of peer-reviewed research, as these should only be debated if refuted by stronger evidence. Rather, I will focus on the tendency to lean towards extremes in the downstream interpretations and discussions within the community, such as at conferences, in blogs, and in books.
“What refutes science is better science.” However, does this principle shield any research paper from discussion or debate? Is it necessary to have empirical evidence to object to certain aspects of a research paper? The short answer is no. As an unpopular opinion, I am completely fine with the current publication system. The results section of a peer-reviewed research paper is not the part that should be criticized; rather, it is the interpretations of these results that can be challenged. An experiment is not fallible unless a more profound experiment proves it so. Someone might argue that a different approach should have been taken, but this does not mean that what was done is wrong. What truly matters is the conclusions presented in the discussion section and how objectively the researchers interpret the results without drawing conclusions that cannot be substantiated by the experiment.
Things get more interesting when we consider synthesizing information on a broader scale. The interpretation of various results obtained within a specific field over a significant period often finds its way into blogs or books. In these interpretations, a substantial amount of empirical evidence is integrated into models that describe how something works in a general sense. What does that mean? Research articles in biology typically cover a small aspect of the larger picture, supported by experimental evidence. It’s not as though one paper can explain the entire process of embryogenesis. Instead, each paper might focus on the role of a gene, a protein, or a specific pathway. These findings need to be combined, and from this cumulative knowledge, a model is extrapolated.
The example I will discuss concerns the nature of life itself: Is life gene-centric or cell-centric? This debate has been ongoing for quite some time in biology. Thousands of studies have been published in the fields of genetics and cell biology. Genes are undoubtedly central, acting as blueprints to build all the proteins in a cell. However, to claim that life is solely gene-centric is inaccurate, as different cell types can have the same genome. From a single cell with one genome copy, an entire organism with numerous specialized cell types emerges, with highly regulated gene expression. This tight regulation is due to feedback pathways, including intercellular signaling. Therefore, a genome copy alone is insufficient to build a complex multicellular organism. Yet, genes are essential because mutations in crucial developmental genes can halt progression from one stage to another. Thus, both genes and cells are equally important for constructing a model of how life works. This is one example, but the field is rife with similar discussions, such as the origins of cancer, the origin of life, or how evolution operates—whether through gradualism or adaptationism.
Given the previous example, an important question arises: Can we truly adopt a black-or-white perspective in biology? In my opinion, biology is a field of gray zones. Laws in biology often apply under specific conditions or at particular levels. When it comes to synthesizing information, biology rarely provides an irrefutable model that explains everything on its own. A successful model should encompass various aspects rather than favor one over the other. I believe it is safe to say that life is both gene-centric and cell-centric. Only by acknowledging this duality can a model effectively cover the different aspects.
Open, unfiltered discussions are vital for keeping science dynamic. These discussions distinguish science from other disciplines. What makes them more legitimate is their basis in empirical evidence within the natural sciences. This added layer of control should encourage scientists to be more conservative in interpreting results, avoiding leaps to speculative conclusions that emphasize data supporting their ideas while ignoring conflicting evidence. This is particularly dangerous when the audience is the general public, as it can lead to misinformation and misconceptions.
In conclusion, taking sides in science can drive healthy debate and progress, but it must be rooted in empirical evidence and open-mindedness. By embracing diverse perspectives and avoiding rigid adherence to one viewpoint, the scientific community can foster a more comprehensive understanding of complex biological phenomena.
RNA Stuff 