Blog #12

 

The last portion of “A Feeling for the Organism,” was especially critical as Keller not only revisits the obstacles that Barbara McClintock faced throughout the rest of her career, but also hints at issues currently circulating throughout the scientific domain. First and foremost, these final chapters illustrate significant differences between autobiographies versus biographies, and the significance of each. Prior to this story, this class involved analyzing the autobiographies of Charles Darwin and Benjamin Franklin, and through these perspectives the readers were exposed to a more humanized side to such brilliant minds. In particular, both scientists were rather critical of their own actions, and in turn, spent time self-reflecting and finding areas of improvement in order to achieve their ultimate virtues and lead the “good life.” For example, in Franklin’s autobiography, he notes how he kept a journal and took notes of his errors and actions in accordance to his set list of virtues on a daily basis–on that same note, he was not afraid to critique his actions and look for ways on which to improve. On the other side of the spectrum, Charles Darwin’s autobiography included passages where Darwin expressed a modest perspective over his own abilities by stating that he was rather “mediocre” compared to his colleagues.

Such reflective and personal thoughts regarding failure is something that is barely touched on in McClintock’s biography. However, the beginning of Chapter 9 is the first moment where the reader is exposed to McClintock’s vulnerable side, as she expresses the shock resulting from the failed Cold Spring Harbor Symposium. Since this biography entails Keller’s overarching perspective on McClintock’s life, she primarily focused on her successes and barely touched on her failures. In particular, Keller even inserts her own thoughts, especially when she compares McClintock’s relationship to her colleagues following the incident at the Cold Harbor Spring Symposium (Keller 144).

Personally, I prefer autobiographies as it encompasses a more personalized perspective of someone looking back on their achievements and their failures throughout their overall career; this critical factor is missing in biographies, as this form involves someone analyzing information that is already relatively public and/or superficial. Thus, biographies tend to list achievements under a name, which is valuable information but also leaves something more personal and significant out of the picture.

Beyond this overarching scope, these chapters also hint at issues that McClintock faced throughout her career, which is significant in that these issues are currently embedded not only in science, but also in other related domains. Specifically, Keller highlights the significance of maintaining a balance between the scientist and the scientific community. In relation to McClintock’s lifestyle, Keller notes the difficulty McClintock faced in trying to communicate her data to her colleagues and the rest of the scientific community; further, she notes that her isolation and independence from others is a gift, but also a curse, especially in the final stages of studies and communicating data. This is a significant point that I want to illustrate as I posed a question on a previous blog regarding whether or not science should be more individualistic or communal. Based on examples drawn up from McClintock’s experiences, I agree that there must be a balance between the two, as a scientist must conduct their own studies and protect viable information, but in the appropriate space, must be able to effectively communicate to others regarding one’s findings and contribute to the field as a whole.

Furthermore, the last note that I want to make regarding this section is that it hints at ongoing gender roles within a male-dominated field. McClintock’s noted brilliance and quick-wit was relatively new within the field, and I found it extremely important that many of her colleagues viewed her as a “maverick” simply because of these traits, which were deemed outside of the norm for women (Keller 142). This is a turning point in the book because throughout her entire career, her gender was still stigmatized which proved to be an obstacle at many points throughout her life and career. However, I personally believe that without such obstacles, she would have never been able to achieve her scientific virtues of autonomy and resilience.  

Blog #11

This section of  “A Feeling for the Organism,” is particularly interesting as it not only dives into the topics mentioned in prior chapters, but also further blends in other topics mentioned throughout our course. What I found to be particularly fascinating is how central gender is in McClintock’s personal life as well as her career. At the end of my previous blog, I posed a thought-provoking concept by suggesting how different the lives and careers of prominent male scientists (i.e., Benjamin Franklin and Charles Darwin), would be if they were women instead. In one particular passage of this book, I was pleased to see that McClintock similarly reflected on this concept. For instance, in Chapter 5, she notes her encounters with the university’s administration over policy violations, but in self-reflection states that if it were a man doing the same things, he would not have been penalized as harshly (Keller 84). This is a significant point in this biography because prior to this chapter, it is almost tangible the ways that McClintock tries to distance herself from her gender label, and in this instance, she uses it as a way to illustrate the double standards present in her society, and scientific community.

Furthermore, there were many moments highlighted in Barbara McClintock’s life that mirrored concepts and principles in our scientific virtues course. Notably, I found that one theme she highlighted was that of the interconnectedness of science and philosophy. Especially, in Chapter 6, the author illustrates the history of the genetics field and the changes in methodologies and resulting ideologies guiding the field forward. The mindset of empirical thinking versus one that is also guided by utilizing philosophical thought is illustrated in McClintock’s approach/practices. She notes that those that considered a “right route” towards discovering the mechanics underlying the genome stunned her. To McClintock, she considered the genome as a more abstract concept. This approach is one that directly impacts not only her research, but also the way her moral character is illustrated throughout the rest of the section.

In accordance to this mindset, the author notes the relationship between the scientific community and the individual, in Barbara McClintock’s eyes. In a community full of empirical thinkers, McClintock appears to raise the bar for her colleagues, both men and women alike. Keller notes that McClintock resisted ongoing methodological trends in her scientific community and instead went beyond to utilize her own research methods (Keller 87). This poses the following significant questions: to what extent should the scientist be subjected to the framework of the scientific community? Is science becoming more individualistic or more of a community? Furthermore, if science is indeed leaning more towards one side or the other, how has or will this impact scientific virutes?

Blog #10

“A Feeling for the Organism,” is a significant milestone within this course as it introduces the personal life of not only a scientist, but a female scientist. This is particularly fascinating as it brings forth another factor that molded this individual into the iconic scientist that they are. This is also a unique book as it is a biography as opposed to an autobiography; this is a perspective that has not been explored until now. Within these pages, Keller introduces and delves deep into the life of geneticist, Barbara McClintock. Prior to reading this section, we had explored the lives of Benjamin Franklin and Charles Darwin, so gender was previously not considered an issue. However, reading this section, I noted how significant the concept of gender and its roles were for McClintock. In particular, Chapter 4 in the book is titled “ A Career for Women,” thus depicting the significant impact her gender played in her journey towards becoming a successful scientist. In particular, the author notes the openness of Cornell towards accepting “ ‘any person in any study’ ” (Keller 29); the openness of this establishment is significant, as it became the focal point for McClintock’s studies and her growth as an individual. The author mentions the ways she strayed away from conventional female roles, as she notes McClintocks neutral perspective towards marriage and even clothing styles (Keller 34). I believe that by distancing herself from her gender label, she was able to flourish as she began to only view and identify herself as purely a scientist. Initially, she notes how the scientific community questioned her credibility, but as she built up her reputation until she became highly respected and admired by men and women alike.

This section of this biography further illuminated a more personal side to McClintock, which is significant in understanding her scientific virtues and the values she placed into practice, of which many of them mirrored that of other scientists. Her determination was evident in the way that she approached her objective of becoming a professor; she notes that regardless of potential consequences, she was willing to face it all to accomplish her task (Keller 28). Her willingness to give up aspects of her life in order to focus on science is similar to that of Darwin, who notes that although he had moments where he doubted his transition away from God, he had no regrets as it brought him closer to the scientific realm.

As a future member of the scientific field, this book resonated something very personal for me, especially as McClintock’s experiences highlights the role of women in the scientific community. She notes that regardless of her accomplishments, she would always be viewed as a woman; this is significant as it highlights that McClintock’s gender was an obstacle in her path of being viewed/treated as a scientist, compared to other brilliant minds like Darwin and Franklin, who were accepted without question. This aspect introduces an interesting thought: what are some other obstacles/stigmas that scientists currently face and how has this influenced their individual stories and the scientific community as a whole? On a final note, as we have previously discussed the lives of prominent male scientists in this course, it’s interesting to think about how their stories might have changed if they were women.

Blog #9

This reading depicts the scientific virtues, more notably, how science is guided by the “organized curiosity” approach. Within this domain, curiosity has also been deemed as practice since it is a fundamental attribute in the field that drives to explore undiscovered truths. Dr. Pennock then further delves deeper into this topic by exploring certain practices carried out in the scientific realm; one such example was where he describes the importance of trust. As mentioned in the passage, honesty is a necessity as it allows for scientists to not only survive in the field, but to thrive and expand. I especially found it interesting when Dr. Pennock explored Merton’s norm of universalism, as it invites the idea that truths should be explored via an unbiased lens, in other words, disregarding religion, gender, etc. However, as discussed in prior discussions, there is a very clear distinction between “should it” and “does it.” Following this section, I believe that this is a core factor in science, but as of current times I do not believe that it is maintained; this is evident in current political measures that have disrupted the immigration of scientists from all walks of life. 

            Furthermore, another passage that resonated with me was where the author explores the openness of researchers in communicating their ideas and their research to others, more notably anyone within and outside the scientific community. Although such public grand gestures are something that still continue today (as seen in college research symposiums, healthcare specialty conferences, etc.) I disagree with Dr. Pennock as open scientific communication is necessary to maintain the practice of honesty, however, I strictly do not believe that “scientific evidence is public evidence” (Pennock 5). Although scientists have a duty to report their findings towards the public, I believe that especially in modern times, scientific information must be filtered appropriately in order to translate news to the public. The onslaught of modern controversial findings regarding gene therapy, artificial intelligence, etc., invites an immense amount of public concern, therefore science should be protected to an extent (as determined by appropriate committees).

            The last significant point from this passage was in regards to how science “checks” itself, as nothing is concrete in science. We have established this checking cycle in discussions, especially in regards to publishing false data for scientific journals. Within the scientific community, the importance of publication is to communicate studies to others in the hopes that those replicating such studies further discover something new. However, if “bad science” is published, the scientific community checks this system by replication and reviewing experiments. As a result, this section is significant as it illustrates ways in which scientists maintain the integrity and honesty of science. Furthermore, the uncertainty of science was further explained by the philosopher Pyrrho, who stated that every bit of knowledge also invites questions; in other words, there is no way to prove, only ways to support. This was an especially significant portion of this passage as it relates back to Dr. Pennock’s first chapter where he discusses the intertwined relationship between science and philosophy; the open boundaries invited by philosophy expand the otherwise concrete borders of science. 

Blog #8

I explored the obituary of one of the leading minds in biology during the twentieth century, Francis Crick. Within this passage, I gained a small glimpse into Crick’s lifetime through the eyes of Charles F. Stevens, who collaborated with Crick on a plethora of projects within the Salk Institute. In explaining Crick’s discovery of not only DNA’s helical structure, but also of the role of RNA and amino acids in the process, Stevens reveals small yet significant details of Crick’s virtues as a scientist. In particular, he elaborates the atmosphere of the scientific community of the 1950s by noting that interests were primarily stemming from obtaining goods, which made science “fun” as it was not driven by funding (Stevens 846). Stevens paints Crick’s persona as a determined and logical individual, who was not afraid to ask the stir the pot and invite controversy and discussion in the field. This attribute is a significant practice, as I believe it contributes towards his success as a scientist.

Furthermore, his obituary drew many parallels to others within this field, most notably the information gleaned from both Franklin and Darwin. Like both of these scientists, Stevens also reveals the influence of religion–in this case, the lack thereof–it had on Crick’s approach towards his research. In the discovery of DNA, Crick also had a motive that stretched beyond making a contribution to the natural sciences; he wanted to ensure that these phenomena could be purely justified using chemistry/physical reasoning, consequently supporting his atheist viewpoint. This perspective is significant as this researcher strived to combine his personal views with his research; this is a stark contrast from what we have gleaned from Darwin’s autobiography, as he slowly but surely made a split from his religious orthodox beliefs to purely focus and dedicate his life to science. I believe that Crick’s unique perspective offers an explanation for his scientific virtues as well. Within this passage, he strives to provide logical reasoning towards his studies, and in the process illustrates his virtues of openness and sympathy. In his research, he strived to include and educate other researchers in the process, which was his way of making a contribution.  Within this passage, Stevens notes how Crick waited for other members of his team to show and observe his DNA model before he proceed on to the next step. As mentioned in Chapter 3 of Pennock’s book, actions encouraging openness and honesty illustrated by scientists further depict the implementation of these dispositions in practice.

Furthermore, while reading this obituary, I grew to realize certain aspects highlighted of Crick’s life mirrors practices of Nichomachean ethics. As an outsider peering into a brief synopsis of a scientist’s life, I strongly believe that Crick’s work within this field illustrated how well he flourished or accomplished “eudaimonia” during his life. This level of achievement is clearly depicted in the determination and other previously mentioned “ergons” or characteristic activities that Crick displayed, all while piecing together what would be the blueprint for all life forms.

Blog #7

  

This reading drew many parallels to previous autobiographies that we have explored. Within Aristotle’s work, we are exposed to the inner workings of happiness operating as a fundamental virtue. The passage first starts off by saying that every action is meant to end up at something “good,” irrespective of the path taken to get there. However, as the reader, this is something that opens up a lot of interesting discussion. What does it mean to be good? This particular question is one that introduces a lot of discussion is: does being good based on mere individual moments or is it based on an overarching journey towards goodness that occurs throughout one’s life? Within our course itself, we are exposed to Franklin and Darwin’s journey to achieve a life of virtue, but only after their deaths and when we can glance back at their lives and the successes/failures in hindsight.

In Book 2, Aristotle goes further in depth to discuss the different kinds of virtues, ones that are taught to others (intellectual) versus ones performed through practice/lifestyle changes (moral). Both passages drew a lot of parallels between our other readings of both Darwin and Franklin’s autobiographies; in the latter one especially, we see that Franklin took active measures to become virtuous. In this process, he approached this topic by listing out his top virtues much like the Ten Commandments; he then kept a scientific notebook and tracked his actions throughout the day and made checkmarks by the virtues he acquired/maintained that day. Additionally, in Darwin’s autobiography, he notes how he had to part with his religious ways and beliefs in order to dedicate his life towards his work: science. In both cases, we see that these bright minds were self-reflective in that they realized that to reach their goals of happiness, and to maintain their virtues they had to change at the very core.