Let’s talk science. More specifically, let me gently tune the melody towards international scientific collaboration. As grand as these words sound, particularly when chained together, one curious individual may ask the reasonable question: well, to start at the head-end, what’s the merit for being international? In reply, we will probably exemplify something on the line of a hypothetical borderless community being able to bring forth people from various backgrounds with different ideologies plus methodologies which, when fused together, can collectively amplify intellectual capacity and seal off inadequacies from any single party thus resulting in a cosmic revelation that ultimately propels the ascension of modern science. After a short pause, the same individual (let’s call him Frank after my good friend from Life Sciences) then contested impatiently: but then, how would a national or even district-wise congregation be any inferior since they surely gather people from diverse locations too? Well, we respond in a condescending tone, the longer distance associated with international flocks allows for cultures of greater differences coming together. Ah, so intellectual diversity is the key, the more dissimilar the merrier. We nod in approval. But wait! (Spoke out from behind by one of our own members) Isn’t science based on concreteness instead of subjectivity as are those worthless arts? If every invitee has his own arbitrary notion of how projects should be conducted (the eccentricity of which correlates proportionally with mileage), and all but one, assuming one at all, can be right, deducing further, what then is the meaning for attracting scientists who are most unlikely to agree “scientifically”? A logical brick wall is hit and everybody detects it. Simple!! (Eager faces turned towards the speaker with the authoritative soprano) Being a premium researcher, one shall possess scholastic rationality so objective that it can perfectly discriminate between what is good and what is not, even if, by doing so, displays the person’s own faultiness. The crowd is awe-struck by the delivery from this experienced young mind who is not only the laboratory craftsman at PCR but whose third authorship in a to-be-published article on protein-kinase has drawn deep admiration. What about individual lab roles? Shouted Frank. Wouldn’t personnel management be a pain since no one wants to be the subordinate? Personal ego should not be permitted, answered our prodigy scholar, intelligent people must learn to follow. And characteristic style? Jumped in another heretic. Scientists think differently, act differently, they even express their ideas differently than one another. Analogous to the team-chemistry of a sports club, wouldn’t some arrangement of group dynamic be most suitable depending on the specific participants? How about…? Why does…? What if…? Inquiries started flooding in as the protein-kinase enthusiast gradually disappears into the background.
Next: Theme & Variations
No comments:
Post a Comment