Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic

by Frederick Grinnell

Scientific facts can be so complicated that only specialists in a field fully appreciate the details, but the nature of everyday practice that gives rise to these facts should be understandable by everyone interested in science. This book describes how scientists bring their own interests and passions to their work, illustrates the dynamics between researchers and the research community, and emphasizes a contextual understanding of science in place of the linear model found in textbooks with its singular focus on "scientific method."

Everyday Practice of Science also introduces readers to issues about science and society. Practice requires value What should be done? Who should do it? Who should pay for it? How much? Balancing scientific opportunities with societal needs depends on appreciating both the promises and the ambiguities of science. Understanding practice informs discussions about how to manage research integrity, conflict of interest, and the challenge of modern genetics to human research ethics. Society cannot have the benefits of research without the risks. The last chapter contrasts the practices of science and religion as reflective of two different types of faith and describes a holistic framework within which they dynamically interact.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction

256 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2008

Reviews

[Courtney Johnston · Rating 2 out of 5]

If the Royals Society's Science Prize shortlist were a cricket over, I'd currently be sitting on a 4 and two dot-balls.

James Hannam's 'God's Philosopher's' was a great read, if gratingly colloquial and see-it-told-you-so-ish in places. Marcus Chown's 'We Need To Talk About Kelvin' I had to abandon a couple of chapters in, because I couldn't see the useful information underpinning the thick slab of whimsy-icing.

I stuck it out for Frederick Grinnell's 'Everyday Practice of Science' for three reasons

1. His name makes me feel kindly towards him (I don't know why)
2. It's quite short and the pages are quite spaciously set
3. I made the public library buy it so I could read it, and therefore felt someone had to get to the end of it.

To quote the Guardian's reviewer:

This is an insider's view of science. You thought science was all about dispassion, objectivity, open-minded logic? Think again: scientists follow hunches, pursue intuitions, have moments of exultation and despair, and fail to see the real significance of negative results. Only you wouldn't necessarily know that from this book.

I feel like this book made it on to the Royal Society's shortlist as an antidote to the fluffy end of pop sci exemplified by Chown. It is a somber and serious review of how science is done - not tales of laboratory thrills and spills, but the process of basic research; of how findings trigger a theory are formulated into a paper is released into the world is cited (or now) and gains integrity becomes accepted fact until replaced by etcetera etcetera.

One of Grinnell's central arguments - and one of the more interesting - is that individually, scientists are not necessarily objective - that objectivity is born of the collective. He quotes Annette Baier's commons of the mind - "We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other reasoning and each other's conceptions of reason" - and concludes:

...objectivity of science does not depend on the individual. Rather, objectivity is a function of the community. Everyday practice of science is neither truth nor power, but rather balanced on a contextual ledge in between.

A rousing call to arms to defend the sweet honour of science it is not. But a thoughtful and - dreaded word - worthy account of how scientific research is funded and conducted, and scientific knowledge is dispersed and built upon it is. I'm unlikely to recommend this to anyone unless they're specifically interested in learning about models that explain how research turns into knowledge.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Forget everything you've learned about scientific methodology, and especially the scientific method, says cell biologist Fred Grinnell in his book "Everyday Practice of Science". Instead he insists, science often operates more successfully by relying on both intuition and passion, and occasionally, even serendipity. The scientific method - especially when viewed through a philosophical lens such as Karl Popper's famous "falsification" criterion - can be viewed more accurately as a guide, not an outright "Bible" - for scientific research. Grinnell contends that, for many scientists, instead of relying upon a strict adherence to the scientific method - which he frequently refers to as the "linear model of idealized research" - there is instead, what he regards as the "ambiguity of every day practice". Much of Grinnell's concise, coherent thought in this rather terse book does revolve around that ambiguity, but it is an ambiguity that may reside only in such "experimental" sciences like cell biology and biochemistry, not within other biological sciences like systematics and ecology. Regardless, Grinnell has written an important book on how science works, and one that should be read widely, both within the scientific community and outside, amongst the scientifically literate public.

Grinnell compares and contrasts the classic model of scientific research with what he refers to as "every day practice". In the classic model, a problem is stated, experiments are carried to confirm or refute hypotheses pertaining to this problem, determine whether experimental results confirm or reject these hypotheses and draw appropriate conclusions, and then seek independent confirmation of these results and conclusions by independent researchers. In "every day practice", or rather, an "ambiguous view" of scientific research, he emphasizes a practical, often pragmatic, view of science, which depends first on how one determines a problem that is worth an ample investment, all too frequently enough, in time and resources, especially those of a financial nature. It's entirely possible that in framing the problem and conducting the experiments, one might ignore, as "experimental error", important data that could lead to an entirely new tangent with respect to scientific research. Moreover, he suggests that good questions should not be discarded immediately if experimental results do not support them at first; since such failures may be due more to errors in experimental design than on whether good questions, good hypotheses, lack any semblance of potential scientific validity. Finally notable discoveries can - and often are - greeted by colleagues with ample suspicion and disbelief, leaving the researcher no choice but to try becoming a successful advocate on behalf of his findings and conclusions.

Does Grinnell make a compelling, quite persuasive, case? He most certainly does within his chosen field of cell biology, demonstrating how "experimental error" and serendipity have led him to unexpectedly new avenues for research. A view of science that is far removed from the classic model known as the "scientific method", and one, I suspect, that is shared by others, including, for example, Brown University cell biologist Ken Miller, who has declared that he does not subscribe at all to this very model of scientific research. It is from this perspective that Grinnell devotes separate chapters to what he refers to as discovery, credibility and integrity. In the chapter entitled "Discovery" (Chapter 2), Grinnell draws upon his early experience as a new researcher who had missed important data by mistakenly attributing it as experimental error, and contends that it is an investigator's thought style (thinking) that is as relevant to scientific discovery as the discovery itself. In "Credibility" (Chapter 3), explains how scientists seek validation of discoveries, not merely through the classic example of scientific peer review, but through publicizing results (via invited lectures at other research institutions and scientific meetings), but also in thinking of their own "thought styles" (preconceptions and "hunches" which may play a more important role in their research than the attempted verification of experimental hypotheses). Unquestionably, "Credibility" is important merely for emphasizing some of the sociological aspects of science I have noted (presenting talks at scientific society meetings, etc.) and comparing and contrasting scientific peer review with its closest analogue, judicial review in the courts (though, admittedly, that isn't a precise analogy between the two).

Sociological aspects of science truly come to the fore in the latter half of "Everyday Practice of Science". Grinnell's chapters on "Integrity" (Chapter 4) and "Informed Consent and Risk" (Chapter 5) addresses, in the words, of a pre-publication reviewer of this book, the "humanity of science". In "Integrity", Grinnell emphasizes the importance of trust in relying on fair, relatively unbiased, peer review in the important task of peer reviewing grant proposals as well as potentially publishable science in scientific journals. He also stresses recognizing potential conflicts of interest, which certain have become ever so important in the recent rapid development of start-up biotechnology firms relying on discoveries made at university and college research centers, often made by the very founders of these firms. The next chapter, "Informed Consent and Risk" delves into the ethics of human research, with special emphasis on gene therapy research. If nothing else, this chapter comprises both a useful and sobering reminder of the perils of human subject research, as well as important insightful analysis from Grinnell explaining why, especially with respect to gene therapy, this research hasn't progressed substantially within the past decade.

Most scientists will insist that Faith (Chapter 6) should never be considered in the every day practice of science. This is clearly one point that a devoutly religious scientist like cell biologist Ken Miller and dedicated atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss will find themselves in agreement. Surprisingly, however, Grinnell observes that, in essence, both religion and science are different sides of the same coin. He believes scientists rely as much on faith in science, as they might in their personal lives, with respect to any deeply held religious beliefs (or perhaps even well-considered skepticism and militant atheism). Succinctly, but with utmost clarity, Grinnell points to Intelligent Design creationism as an excellent example as to how scientists can and should distinguish faith in science from faith in religion. He also stresses how religion and science can be compatible, drawing from physicist Niels Bohr's notion of complementarity, who argued that modern physics created the necessary conditions for recognizing that religion and science constitute opposite sides of the same coin; as separate, but complementary, avenues for asserting faith. Grinnell believes Bohr's point is of utmost importance, in stressing the limitations of both, and perhaps too, to remind scientists that they should embrace humility when thinking of their scientific research, and its implications for others, including the general public. The limitations of scientific research is an important note upon which Grinnell concludes his discussion, but it is an observation that will be ignored by many, especially by so-called "New Atheists" (I prefer the term "Militant Atheists" as a more suitable description of their zealous behavior.) who think religion deserves to be discarded as superstitious nonsense, replaced only by a philosophical worldview which stresses the overriding importance of science.

(Reposted from my 2009 Amazon review)

[Ram Vasudeva · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is an interesting read teaches us the importance of why we believe in Science, processes affiliaed to Scientific work and the various aspects of discovery Science in the current century. Much of Science feeds back into progress in technology and the value of being objective through the development of research acitivities and the various examples surrounding New Drug Discovery and the challenges involved in remaining both objective and publishing results as they are. This too comes at a great cost as there is Trust involved; cost of responsible research with clarity. A good read, as the language is simple and easy to comprehend and much needed for the benefit of Scientists and Researchers, budding young minds and students/readers alike. Time and again we are reminded of the role Science plays in modern societies and therefore the weight of Scientific principles and its interactions with religious sentiments etc. A recommended read.

[Jack Sternburg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just read the first half.

[Joshua Stein · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is sort of weird and unfortunate. It starts off as a very good introduction to the social studies of science literature, an introduction strong enough that I'd consider using it in an undergraduate class on the subject, especially if it was anthropology/sociology oriented. But the book devolves quickly into a personal reflection on Grinnell's own attempts to reconcile religion and science. This is an interesting topic, but one that is sufficiently intellectually complicated that the writing style doesn't leave us with much in the way of substance.

On the whole, this book misses two major opportunities, both to talk about science as something in the world, and not simply theoretical and idealized, and to seriously introspect on religion and science. Grinnell likely has some interesting thoughts on both these subjects, from reading the book, but it lacks depth, partly because he goes the "general audience" route and does dumb down some portions of the material significantly.

Anyway, I wouldn't likely recommend the book, because even with the strong introduction to the social sciences, I wouldn't want to foist the entire superficial discussion of religion and science at the end on someone should they feel obligated to read the whole thing. There are better places to look for introductory materials in the sociology of scientific knowledge.

[Davie]

Reviewed here: http://arstechnica.com/science/review...

[Greg Collver · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was pretty good, a little dry and confusing in places.

[George Sullivan-davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book last summer to help me participate on one of the St.Vincent Institutional Review Boards as a Non-scientific member. It's one of the many that I come back to review every few months.