The Mistakes Science Makes
Carol W. Greider is the Daniel Nathans Professor & Director of Molecular Biology & Genetics at Johns Hopkins University. Her research on telomerase (an enzyme she helped discover) and telomere function won her a 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine. Prior to joining the Johns Hopkins faculty, she obtained a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1997, and was a faculty member at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. She is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a recipient of the 1998 Gairdner Foundation International Award.
Question: What has been your biggest mistake as a scientist?
Carol Greider: Well, I've made a number of mistakes along the way. When you make—I feel like if there's a scientific mistake—so when I publish something and it turns out that the conclusion that was drawn wasn't completely correct, then it's the responsibility of the scientist to then do the experiments and publish the correct answer. But in that sense, science is very self-correcting, because if something is published and it's important, and it's wrong, then a number of other people will find out that it's wrong, although that may take a number of years, and some people may be led astray. So I think that the real importance is to not be necessarily attached to a particular idea, with the idea that telomere shortening plays some role in cell death, say. The thing that we would like to do is to test that idea. And one thing that I think creeps into people's thinking sometimes is that they want to prove a hypothesis. And I never think about proving a hypothesis, but rather think about different ways to test the hypothesis. And this was something that I think I learned very early on in Liz Blackburn's lab when we first had discovered something that looked like it was elongating telomeres. And then a period of about nine months went by where we set up to ask ourselves, is it really true that we've discovered a new enzyme? And we came up with a variety of methods to shoot down our own hypothesis. Maybe we're being fooled because it's a normal DNA polymerase that's just making this, and it looks like it's something new. Or maybe we're being fooled in a different direction. And then after the discovery withstood the test of nine months of attacks from our own standpoint about how could we shoot ourselves down, then I started to really believe that it was true. And so that really taught me that it's most important to be critical of your own hypothesis rather than to be a cheerleader for it. And I have a little bit of a fear against people just cheerleading for ideas, rather—I think it's more important to test them because that's how you then move forward, because many ideas are going to be wrong. And if you test an idea and find out it's wrong, you can go in another direction. But if you're a cheerleader for an idea, it may last for a longer period of time even if it's not correct.
Recorded November 10th, 2009
Interviewed by Austin Allen
Nobel-winning biologist Carol Greider explains why scientists must be critics, not cheerleaders, of their own hypotheses.
These modern-day hermits can sometimes spend decades without ever leaving their apartments.
- A hikikomori is a type of person in Japan who locks themselves away in their bedrooms, sometimes for years.
- This is a relatively new phenomenon in Japan, likely due to rigid social customs and high expectations for academic and business success.
- Many believe hikikomori to be a result of how Japan interprets and handles mental health issues.
How a cataclysm worse than what killed the dinosaurs destroyed 90 percent of all life on Earth.
While the demise of the dinosaurs gets more attention as far as mass extinctions go, an even more disastrous event called "the Great Dying” or the “End-Permian Extinction” happened on Earth prior to that. Now scientists discovered how this cataclysm, which took place about 250 million years ago, managed to kill off more than 90 percent of all life on the planet.
A new study discovers the “liking gap” — the difference between how we view others we’re meeting for the first time, and the way we think they’re seeing us.
We tend to be defensive socially. When we meet new people, we’re often concerned with how we’re coming off. Our anxiety causes us to be so concerned with the impression we’re creating that we fail to notice that the same is true of the other person as well. A new study led by Erica J. Boothby, published on September 5 in Psychological Science, reveals how people tend to like us more in first encounters than we’d ever suspect.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.