Tuesday 18 September 2012

Scientific misadventure: A review of When Science Goes Wrong, by Simon LeVay


In a well-rounded university library collection, some of the books—the majority of them—directly support the research and educational programs of the university. Others can be considered food for thought. They provide stimulation for inquiring minds, a way to explore new areas and expand one’s horizon. Many of these are just plain fun to read. I will review some from time to time that have piqued my interest, starting now.

If you are fascinated by science and technology, you would probably enjoy When Science Goes Wrong: Twelve Tales from the Dark Side of Discovery, by Simon LeVay (Penguin Group, 2008, in the Archer Library at call number Q 172.5 E77 L48 2008). There are twelve chapters that can be read individually, each telling of an episode that involved science or technology, and in which something went terribly wrong. The subject matter of the stories ranges all over the map: a highly experimental and unauthorized transplant of fetal tissue into a Parkinson’s patient’s brain, an explosion at a nuclear power plant (eighteen years before Three Mile Island), geologists killed as they explored an active volcano that became too active at the wrong moment, out-and-out scientific fraud, and eight others just as diverse.

The author, Simon LeVay, is a neuroscientist who briefly came to fame back in 1991 when he published, as a sole author in the journal Science, the first study to document a structural difference between the brains of gay and straight men (LeVay, S. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science, 253(5023), p. 1034-1037, August 30, 1991, DOI: 10.1126/science.1887219). He came to popular science writing only after a career at the prestigious Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego and Harvard Medical School. This background is reflected in his writing, which is the writing of a true scientist. It is not flashy, but not plodding. The writing carefully focuses on the science, on the facts, on what is known and what is not known. In this book, you certainly won’t find anything like Malcolm Gladwell’s “igon values” (eigenvalues), or Jonah Lehrer’s manufactured Bob Dylan quotes. This style will probably never get one of LeVay’s books on the bestseller list, but it is a style that I think will engage most scientifically-minded readers.

Is there a moral to the book? I didn’t find one, and I don’t think LeVay intended there to be one. Some chapters—maybe most—could be considered cautionary, but not really in some all-encompassing sense, or in the sense of illustrating some grand principle, other than that we should always keep Murphy’s Law in mind. (Indeed, the chapter on the nuclear power plant disaster shows us how astonishingly easy it was to blow up the plant accidentally or intentionally, and the explosion might possibly have been a murder-suicide; the plant was practically an engraved invitation to Murphy. Let’s hope that it’s a bit harder to blow up today’s nuclear plants.) I think what LeVay intended the book to be, and what I found it to be, is simply an interesting read.

LeVay does, however, engage in a bit of rambling philosophizing in a 6-page epilogue. He talks about risk-taking in scientific progress, and writes, “Many risk-taking scientists never make great discoveries, certainly, but few scientists make great discoveries without taking great risks...” Interestingly, a recent issue of Nature touches on this topic in an obituary of Martin Fleischmann, of cold fusion notoriety. For those who don’t remember the cold fusion fiasco, twenty-two years ago Fleischmann and fellow electrochemist Stanley Pons announced triumphantly at a press conference that they had succeeded in generating nuclear fusion using cheap, simple table-top apparatus, in contrast to the billions of dollars that had been spent over decades in the quest for this type of power. The claimed success of Fleischmann and Pons’s process has never been replicated, despite the best efforts of many researchers. It is not generally believed that they engaged in any deception or fraud, but rather that they were too eager to make a dramatic announcement of their results and didn’t sufficiently check for errors. The Nature obituary, after noting a couple of Fleischmann’s scientific successes prior to the cold fusion episode, says that “Cold fusion was not really an aberration for Fleischmann, but an extreme example of his willingness to suggest bold and provocative ideas, to take risks and to make imaginative leaps that could sometimes yield a rich harvest.” (Ball, P. Martin Fleischmann (1927-2012). Nature 489(7414), p. 34, September 6, 2012, DOI: 10.1038/489034a).

LeVay also muses in the epilogue, “It would be an interesting exercise to go back in the scientific literature—say, twenty years or so—and pick a random selection of a hundred papers and ask, ‘Were they right in their main findings and conclusions, and were they as original as their authors claimed?’ I’ll write more about this in a future post.

No comments:

Post a Comment