Science is sublime, but it is not infallible. As with any other aspect of life, there is a lot to criticize about science. Today I will address the commentaries by one of the most compelling characters in the sci-fi genre, Jurassic Park's Dr. Ian Malcolm.
Let’s talk about the Science of Fiction.
Jurassic Park, the novel by Michael Crichton, was released in 1990 and Steven Spielberg adapted it to the big screens soon after. The story is about the construction of an amusement park in which the main attraction is dinosaurs. But you knew this already.
Instead of dinosaurs and the question of bringing extinct species to life, let’s dissect one of the character’s criticisms of science: the chaos-advocate mathematician, Dr. Malcolm.
Both in the novel and in the movie, Dr. Ian Malcolm is a peculiar, opinionated character. Though, in the movie, Jeff Goldblum portrays him as charmingly quirky, making him slightly more lovable and definitely a fan favorite.
Dr. Malcolm is an expert in chaos theory. He wears all black, speaks with eloquence, and throughout the movie, he never shut up about how bad an idea the construction of a Jurassic Park is. He predicted there would be trouble when he was invited, alongside other experts in different fields, to inspect the location. Although he could not figure out beforehand what said trouble would be. (A running joke in Academia: mathematicians often are sure the problem has a unique solution but cannot find the solution.)
SPOILER (but is it really?): dinosaurs went free and ate people.
The karate master and the problem with science
At one particular moment in the novel, Dr. Malcolm, fed up with the arrogance shown by the park’s founder, gives a passionate speech about the wrongness of science. One criticism that clicked with many readers.
He argued that the problem with science is that scientists experiment with power long before they acquire wisdom to deal with it. I like the parallel he draws: A karate fighter takes years of discipline and hard work to get their black belt and to be able to kill a person with their bare hands. But when the time comes for them to become a master, they had attained the prudence to use their abilities with responsibility. The effort put into the journey makes the end result too precious to waste.
“The person who kills,” he says, “is the person who has no discipline, no restraint, and who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special.”
“Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power.” (Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park)
In his analogy, he said that, likewise, scientific power is obtained without discipline, “like inherited wealth.” A scientist has just to stand on the shoulders of giants, as he put it.
“You read what others have done, and you take the next step. You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast. There is no discipline lasting many decades. There is no mastery: old scientists are ignored. There is no humility before nature. There is only a get-rich-quick, make-a-name-for-yourself-fast philosophy. Cheat, lie, falsify—it doesn’t matter. Not to you, or to your colleagues. No one will criticize you. No one has any standards. They are all trying to do the same thing: to do something big, and do it fast.”
This is the point where we disagree. As a scientist myself, I cannot assent to the idea that there is no hard work or discipline involved in becoming a scientist. It takes four to five years as an undergrad, plus two years to become a master, and four more to get a Ph.D. After that, three to ten years of postdoctoral training until you have enough experience to compete for a permanent position. One cannot do it without dedication (full-time, in most cases) and perspicacity. It is way longer than the time needed to achieve the status of a karate master.
Is Dr. Malcolm's criticism totally baseless?
No. As the saying goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
During the Cold War, scientific growth came at the expense of more philosophical renderings. The “shut up and calculate” method prevailed, and speed was indeed rewarded. It still is. Academia really needs to re-evaluate its priorities. Sadly, this rush for productivity negatively impacts the mental health of our scientists.
It is not true, however, that scientists do not care about the consequences of their work. There are ethical guidelines in every field of knowledge. However, it can be hard to predict the future. More specifically, the misuse of technology. And it is even harder to control it, especially if you are a scientist and not a politician.
And, before I forget it, scientists most certainly do not rush to get rich quickly, lol. Really, if you want lots of money, do not follow an academic career.
Disclaimer: there are exceptions to every rule. It is no different in science.
Fortunately, imagining abusage and mishandling of technology is great for science-fiction writers. So yay!
That’s it for today, folks.
See you next post!
Ra.
Carla Ra is a scientist by day, sci-fi writer by night.
You can check out her anthology ARTIFICIAL REBELLION here.
