Science begins and ends with humility

Science requires humility. Any scientific investigation starts with acknowledging ignorance. Scientific progress requires a willingness to admit mistakes and accept evidence, even when it goes against cherished and esteemed beliefs, theories, and colleagues.

As a scientist, I am fascinated by the science of covid-19, from the genetic code of the virus to the mathematical modeling of epidemics. I find it amazing how much we do know. It is also amazing how much we do not know.

The SARS-CoV2 virus is one of many coronaviruses; a name derived from the crown-like appearance of a virus particle in an electron microscope. The points on the crown are called spike proteins; they are attached to a spherical surface composed of other proteins. The diameter of the virus particle is about one-tenth of a micron. If you lined up ten thousand particles next to each other in a straight line they would be the size of a pinhead. The complete details of the atomic composition and geometrical arrangement of these spike proteins have been determined. This sphere (virus capsid) encapsulates the genetic information that is encoded in a single strand of an RNA molecule. The spike proteins allow a virus particle to attach itself to and enter a human respiratory cell. Inside the cell the virus particle bursts releasing the RNA molecule that then moves to the ribosome of the cell which then makes many copies of the RNA molecule. The information in each of these molecules is then used to manufacture the proteins that compose a virus particle. The copies of the RNA and proteins then reassemble into thousands more virus particles that then leave the host cell and move onto more cells.

It is amazing we know so much. Furthermore, we know the exact details of this genetic information. The RNA molecule in the SARS-CoV2 virus particle consists of a unique sequence of 33,000 letters (G, U, T, or C). In the laboratory, scientists can make a molecule with exactly this sequence and use these molecules to make artificial copies of the virus particles. We know so much. It is amazing. Aren’t we clever!

The flu epidemic of 1918-1920 killed more people than World War I. Back then we did not even know that RNA existed, the structure of any protein molecule, what the genetic code was, the mechanism of infection, how to mathematically model the spread of epidemics or the relative merits of different strategies for managing epidemics. We now know so much more. Today, this knowledge is saving thousands of lives.

Yet, we know so little. Although we know all the amazing details above, we cannot predict the structure of the virus particles. Furthermore, we don’t know the design of effective and safe drugs and vaccines to treat covid-19. A vaccine has never been developed for a coronavirus. This does not mean that it is not possible or even that it won’t happen in the next year. We also don’t really know how to balance the medical benefits and the economic and social costs of lockdowns.

Modeling, understanding, and describing social, political, and economic phenomena is even more difficult than physical, chemical, and biological phenomena. Scott E. Page is a Professor of Political Science, Complex Systems, and Economics at the University of Michigan. He teaches an online course, ``Model thinking’’ that has been taken by more than a million people. In his recent book, The Model Thinker, Page makes the case for using multiple models to describe human behavior.

We conclude with a plea for humility and empathy. In constructing models of people, a modeler must be humble. Given the challenges of diversity, social influence, cognitive errors, purpose, and adaptation, our models will inevitably be wrong, which is why we take a many-model approach.

Parenthetically, I note that this many-model approach is similar to the method of multiple hypotheses advocated by John Platt and that I have blogged about previously.

In 1932, Albert Einstein responded to a letter from Queen Elizabeth of Belgium, who complimented him on his lucid explanation to her of various topics in theoretical physics. Einstein wrote: 

It gave me great pleasure to tell you about the mysteries with which physics confronts us. As a human being, one has been endowed with just enough intelligence to be able to see clearly how utterly inadequate that intelligence is when confronted with what exists. If such humility could be conveyed to everybody, the world of human activities would be more appealing.

Quoted in Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Albert Einstein, The Human Side: Glimpses from His Archives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979, 48.


The text above is an extract from a draft chapter that I have contributed to a forthcoming book produced with my friends in the "holy" scribblers group.

More to follow.

Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 7, 2020 at 10:12 PM

    Nice post! In my limited personal experience in HEP and some AMO/CM, I find humility is hard to come by in physicists. My own guess is that decades of reductionism and success in working on (comparatively) simplistic and well defined problems has made it difficult for physicists to accept their own ignorance.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Herzberg-Teller coupling?

Image
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thrown around. Google scholar yields more than 3000 hits. But I have found its precise meaning and the relevant physics hard to pin down. Quantum mechanics in chemistry by Schatz and Ratner is an excellent book , but the discussion on page 204 did not help me. "Herzberg-Teller" never appears in Atkins' Molecular quantum mechanics. So here is my limited understanding. Herzberg and Teller wanted to understand why one observed certain vibronic (combined electronic and vibrational) transitions that were not expected, particularly some that were expected to be forbidden on symmetry grounds. " Intensity borrowing " occurred. Herzberg and Teller pointed out that his could be understood if the dipole transition moment for the electronic transition depended on the nuclear co-ordinate associated with the vibration. In the Franck-Condo
Read more

Is it an Unidentified Superconducting Object (USO)?

If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new material. There is a long history of this and it is worth considering the wise observations of Robert Cava , back in 1997, contained in a tutorial lecture. It would have been useful indeed in the early days of the field [cuprate superconductors] to have set up a "commission" to set some minimum standard of data quality and reproducibility for reporting new superconductors. An almost countless number of "false alarms" have been reported in the past decade, some truly spectacular. Koichi Kitazawa from the University of Tokyo coined these reports "USOs", for Unidentified Superconducting Objects , in a clever cross-cultural double entendre likening them to UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects, which certainly are their equivalent in many ways) and to "lies" in the Japanese translation of USO.   These have caused g
Read more

What should be the order of authors on a conference poster or talk?

I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With regard to paper authorship my general rule is that the person who does the bulk of the work, including actually writing the paper should be the first author. Doug Natelson has a good post on co-authorship , that I largely agree with. My only difference is that I am not really convinced that good practice prevails in the majority of circumstances. I fear there are increasing numbers of co-authors, particularly senior ones, with marginal contributions. But, what about conference talks and posters? Many of these are based on work that is already or about to be published. Should the author order be identical as the associated papers? I am not sure it should necessarily be. My tentative view is that the person who writes and submits the abstract and actually prepares and presents the post/talk should be the first author. Perhaps they should also highlig
Read more