Re: Of caves and caverns and the egocentralisation of science
Dear Caveman,
I have to report the alarming news that the tribal elders on the plains are planning to close our cave! Current philosophy has it that only the best science comes out of caverns. Cavernous enterprises harbouring hyped-up migrant groups that get tipped out after 5-8 years offer, according to the ‘secure’ elders, the only “viable structure”. But is this the only way to do science and serve the community? As I see it, the crux of the matter lies in the subtle distinction between a group (in the cavern) and a team. The group concept presupposes an ambitious leader, allotted post-docs and students, at and for his disposal, to get as much done before the next migrant arrives. This fosters an egocentric attitude towards science, whereby no time is allowed for otherwise contributing to the community. The team concept forsees a stratified, longer-term structure that can incorporate less hyped, but no less capable, scientific co-workers at different stages in their careers. Alongside its scientific activities, the team can develop the experience required for organizing courses and meetings that serve essential needs - courses and meetings that the group leaders and their co-workers gladly attend. The current trend to discourage the existence of teams is short-sighted and will damage the community in the longer term. There is not a single recipe for good science: judgement should be made on the productivity of a group or a team, and this judgement should include consideration of contributions to the community as a whole.
By the way, a disregarded advantage of a cave is the convenience of reaching it easily from any neck of the woods, adding to the quality of life. The caverns, embedded in the concrete jungle, are accessible only at the expense of time and nerves and from costly accommodation in the business belt.
Let’s preserve the spirit of the cave,
Best regards
Alpine Cave Dweller (Vic Small)
Dear Alpine Cave Dweller,
I am sorry for the delay in writing, but I have been away on an expedition to meet new cave-people who have an interest in our work (I have to go a long way these days to find these types of people!).
Unfortunately, your rock-mail and the news therein did not come as a surprise to me, as I had heard from a recent visitor that your cave was about to be closed. I am disappointed and concerned. It is an excellent cave: dry, warm and friendly, with breath-taking views over the scientific terrain, excellent facilities and a wonderful knowledge base for the next generations. I also know that outstanding work has, like the smell of venison and pfefferlingen I recall, come wafting out of your cave to make the rest of us hungry for more and a tad jealous of your good fortune in having such an excellent cave environment for you work.
The rationale to evict your clan must be the effect of some infected mammoth liver on the mental capacity of your elders; it can certainly not be due to the lack of outstanding work, mentoring or training. As you note in your rock-mail, it is likely that the elders want to centralize the efforts of the clan. I agree that this makes it much less likely that individuals will be recognized for their contributions as they are now considered to be part of something larger, in which the emphasis is on the collective contribution. Perhaps, this is a way that the elders, now trapped in their bureaucratic straight-jackets, can take credit for discoveries and advances without direct involvement in the work.
This trend is not limited to your clan. We have many examples of elders imposing their ideas of Big Science. Here, individuals are coerced with free bags of grain and nuts to work for a centralized group, be told what to work on, provide their data to that group without questions and have little say in how it is used - some ‘alliance’ huh? I am sure that some see this as a much more efficient way of doing science, because it centralizes efforts, equipment and sharing of ideas and data. But, it takes away the individual and, as you say, the natural inquisitiveness of the scientist to forge out in new directions (i.e. away from the crowd). I also think that it represses the ability of younger scientists to think as individuals and to be bold in developing new ideas and new approaches.
It amuses me, in a sick way, how the elders want to get more and more into the act of ‘organizing’ science. Surely, they see how individuals made discoveries. Would Fleming, or Watson and Crick, or you have been successful as part of a bigger group, or a cavern as you state? Would they still have thought out of the box when intellectually hemmed in by others, pressured by the demands to contribute to the group as a whole, and be told where, when and how to act in the group? I think it unlikely. Don’t get me wrong - I am all for working together, communicating our ideas and results, and using the knowledge of others with mine to move science forward. But I like doing it at my own pace.
I agree with you, let’s hear it for the ‘spirit of the cave’.
I hope that your elders will reconsider this bit of foolishness. I would offer you space in my cave. However, I cannot give you directions to it, as its location is sort of secret.
Caveman
