Jonathan Falk points to this news article by Jessica Wapner, The Rise of the Science Sleuths. Falk writes:
I like the idea, but it seems to substitute out “scientist as hero” nonsense for the “lonely nerd as hero” model, which I’m not sure is a lot better…. where is the “truth as hero” model? The problem is that it’s hard to embody Truth.
I agree with Falk. I like these data thugs, and what I really like is there are a lot of them. There’s safety in numbers. Every time I read an article about scientists who are critics of bad science, I’m happy that the article isn’t about me! Indeed, years ago I was contacted by a writer for Psychology Today who wanted to write an article about my contributions to science reform, and I agreed to do so, but only on the condition that they’d talk about several scientists, not just me. And that’s what they did! So I think that, by including several data thugs in her article, Wapner is moving away from the “X as hero” model of reporting, and that’s good. I published an article with one of the people mentioned there, but I’ve never met him, nor have I met any of the other people mentioned there. That’s a good thing—it suggests the science reform movement has some breadth; it’s not just a tight group of friends or colleagues.
P.S. Ironically, the above-linked article appeared in Undark magazine, which a few years ago ran a disgraceful political hit piece. Fair enough. An institution can contain multitudes. Columbia includes me, and it also includes whoever it is who was faking those U.S. News numbers.
I respect your ability to recognize technical excellence and hold up scientific failure to the light so that we each can return to our work redoubled and help each other achieve greatness. Yet there is necessary balance and heroism must be held in high honor even while all heroes are complex, fallible, and mortal. A perpetual need to dethrone authentic heroes and decenter individuals is not itself noble. Preferentially reflecting on what is good, or even great, in each other and treating fallibility, bias, and age in heroes with grace are a duty for each of us. An inability to recognize individual excellence is a partial inability to recognize and celebrate excellence, inherently degrading.
Ben:
I agree that technical excellence and good work in general should be celebrated. Indeed, heroic behavior should be celebrated. But the scientist as hero thing, I’m not such a fan of. Look what it did to Steven Levitt.
I understood Ben’s point slightly differently, which was that instead of swapping out “scientist as hero” with “sleuth as hero”, we redefine what we mean by “hero”. Specifically, it may be possible to understand a “hero” as someone who has made exceptional contributions in some domain, while also understanding that a “hero” is something everyone can be (at least in principle, in the right circumstances) and that because everyone *can* be a hero, being one doesn’t confer some kind of superhuman status that goes beyond one’s domain(s) of heroism.
Of course, it is hard to get people to adopt a different interpretation of a common term, so I don’t expect rapid progress on that front. As you say, I think it is better to identify heroism with behavior/actions rather than people. Given the rhetorical necessity of good stories, I think this move is a bit easier. It is still possible to tell powerful stories about heroic acts without slotting someone into a role of some kind of superhuman “hero”.
Perhaps we need to distinguish between “heroes” and “acts of heroism.” The latter should indeed be celebrated and serve as models. I’m not so sure about the former. Too often it is a matter of luck or selective reasoning when we identify someone as a “hero.” We are all flawed human beings. While I’m sure that some people qualify as “heroes,” I am not so sure I know enough to identify them – I would depend on third party accounts of their actions, which are invariably subject to the “hero” mythology Andrew is objecting to. Heroic acts seem more straightforward, although these are also subject to both luck and third party accounts. But I think it is healthier to hold up models of behavior to strive for rather than people to be admired.
I agree with everyone!
Sometimes the acts of heroism are less important than the hero. The best example might be Joseph Warren, a better candidate for “father of our country” than George Washington.
We don’t really know that much about why Warren made the choices he did, but the choices themselves are pretty clear. He seems to have decided that the Revolutionary War needed a war hero, and that hero needed to be a member of the aristocracy. How do you generate heroism? You go do it yourself. Warren was handed a commanding officer commission and used that authority to insist that he serve as a private. He asked his subordinates to identify the weakest spot in the line, then informed them he was going there to fight with the other men. Everyone objected; he overruled them all. Sure enough, the British overran Breed’s Hill. Just before the line was overrun, Warren sent the surviving troops down the other side to safety. Warren continued shooting until he was shot to death. Word spread, and soon everyone in the colonies knew his name.
Songwriter Andrew Marlin (Mandolin Orange, now Watchhouse) wrote a song about him called “Wildfire,” with the unforgettable line “a nation unborn needs bravery.”
There no doubt were other soldiers who died just as bravely as Warren. But his act of self-sacrifice – intended to show that the aristocracy was as committed to freedom as the common man – stood alone and may very well have turned the tide of the war. He was a hero in every sense of the word.
I could have invoked Smedley Butler here as well.
Joseph Warren was a doctor rather than a titled aristocrat. There are multiple contradictory accounts of his death, but the one on Wikipedia claims he ran out of ammunition rather than that he was still shooting when he was killed. The idea that he sent the survivors to safety while he stayed to fight to the death strikes me as mythical.
It is important to note the “science sleuths” only exist because researchers are not doing their jobs (replicating each others work). Indeed, the funding agencies (eg, NIH) actively avoid giving money to do the job correctly (it “lacks novelty”).
This stuff should be absolutely bog standard, the only obstacles are social/cultural. Is it really going to take a total gutting of NIH to remove these obstacles? Because that is where things are headed if the easy way isn’t taken.
I’ve spent lots of other people’s resources,
and used practices that may have been wrong
Which may have severely distorted discourses,
but I won’t remember that for too long
I’ve talked loudly about things I know nothing of,
and taught naive people to think and talk like me
But I’ve stayed silent when push came to shove,
and not to ponder how to truly think, hear, and see
I’ve lied, manipulated, and schemed
to paint a picture of things how I please
I’ve made truths into things that merely seemed,
Do you think that’s something that will cease?
I’ve turned many things upside down,
and what I’ve published may amount to zero
But don’t tell me I can’t wear my crown,
don’t tell me I can’t call myself a hero
I’m afraid what I’ll be
if you can’t see a hero in me
I’m afraid what I’ll see
if I let go of that view of me
So I’ll paint how I please to soothe my soul
I’ll paint a picture and pretend it makes me whole