I was struck by a blog entry on how rudeness is inherent to being a scientist:
“I think that there is an entire extra level of rudeness that comes with being a scientist and it’s nothing to be ashamed of.”
Since most scientists I’ve met are approachable people, I was curious about what the thrust of the argument was. The central point was that scientists do and should ask tough questions at the end of talks and this is a part of fruitful scientific exchange. The writer had a valid point because open and frank discussion can be helpful in improving and challenging ideas. This is especially valid for countries where deference to seniority, experience, age is considered obligatory and proper manners.
I had a few thoughts on the entry. Firstly, I do agree with basic point of the entry and feel that one appreciates straight to the point and even blunt reviews. This is necessary for honest feedback and appraisal of work.
However, one can be honest and forthcoming without being antagonistic or rude. This is the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Moreover, asking questions just to appear smarter defeats the purpose of fruitful scientific exchange.
In order to avoid disgruntled questions, I have noticed good noticed researcher going an extra mile to clarifying themselves. This may be by organizing their talks and papers better and also letting the audience interjecting during the talk.
Finally, a speaker who is humble and less prone to portraying his work as the next big discovery is also less likely to be asked rude questions.
Tags: rudeness, sciencetific exchange
As a first year PhD student I have found the overly brutal challenging at the end of presentation the most daunting thing about giving a talk. It seems to go against what I was really looking forward to in my new science career; cooperating with others in getting Nature to give up her secrets. Perhaps I have a naive understanding of cooperation.
I think there are two problems. First, the competitive questioning, that is where sthe questioner is trying either to display their knowledge of the field or failing that trying to stump the speaker. Neither of these helps elucidate things.
The second is rudeness, or lack of social skills. Many questioners seem to think that just because they disagree with the speaker they do not have to respect the speaker. That is just downright unpleasant and doesn’t help the public image of science and scientists.
I guess some of this comes from the (nearly) zero sum funding game that researchers play. We are all chasing the same money. If we can’t win it by showing we are the best we may win it by implying that others are worse than us. Whereas if we all worked together we may actually get the answers.
Perhaps it just comes for a passion for the truth. Still, that is no excuse for a lack of civility. Telling people they are wrong can be down without causing offence.
I used to think it was bad in the private sector, but that is nothing compared to academia. I have no hope of this changing soon and now think one of the attributes I need to work in order to pursue my academic career is a thicker skin.
In the book Advice for the Young Investigator by the Nobel Prize scientist Ramon Y Cajal. In chapter 8, he mentions about the need of Justice and Courtesy in relationships in Science. Based on Dr. Damasio’s findings in Neuroscience, we are emotional beings as well. Why should a good scientist leave his/her emotions on the back seat? This is simply ignorance about human nature. And we work more productively when we are treated with politeness.