The Tree of Scientific Knowledge

The best way I can describe the progress of science is through a tree. Before any scientific advancements, this “tree of knowledge” was just a seedling, wanting to grow. As large scientific discoveries are made, such as the discovery of quantum mechanics or the discovery of the structure of DNA, branches representing such large fields are added to the trunk of the tree. When a scientific discovery is made that fits under one of these branches, like the discovery of the Higgs boson under the quantum mechanics branch, I think of a twig being added to one of these larger branches. 

While this sort of analogy may seem to emphasize that these “twig” contributions are less significant than whole branches, this is not my intention. My intention is to point out that generating an entirely new branch in science, as was oftentimes done from the 1910s to the 1930s in the “golden age of physics” (Collison and Nielsen), is extremely hard. Scientists in this day and age have the luxury of being able to study, apply, and extend the large scientific wealth of data left by past scientific figures, rather than having to discover entirely new fields on their own.

This does not mean that today’s scientists are less innovative or intelligent than those in the past. If anything, scientific research is much harder than it was in the past because a scientist needs to know the intricacies of a specific branch they are studying through and through before they can make any sort of further contribution. Because of this, oftentimes it is better to extend a field of science than to try to create an entirely new field.

CRISPR technology is a great example of this. Without the fundamental research advances made by Crick, Franklin, and Watson about the structure and function of DNA, and various other contributions to this branch, of course, CRISPR would cease to exist. But just because CRISPR is a twig under the branch that is DNA/genome research, that does not mean it is any less useful or innovative. 

A technology like CRISPR has the potential to eradicate entire diseases like sickle cell or hemophilia. Rather than a metric of productivity used to measure scientific research, as was used in “Science Is Getting Less Bang for Its Buck,” a metric of potential makes much more sense. Scientific research regarding areas of medicine, for instance, has the potential to increase human lifespan; whereas, research regarding crude oil extraction is not doing the earth any favors. Government funding and grants should be prioritized for scientific research that has the potential to advance humanity, instead of advancing the pockets of executives. 

The article “Science Isn’t Broken” conveys the idea that “science is really fucking hard” perfectly. Not only is there more existing research that makes finding genuinely new findings more difficult, but also there is decades worth of data and research that a current scientist must consider when conducting research. There are so many confounding variables in any given study due to the amount of prior research done on the topic, which explains why multiple scientists had come to opposite conclusions in “Science Isn’t Broken.” 

In this same article, the author mentions that “every good paper includes the phrase “more study is needed”,” as science is an ever-expanding field that is never completely correct due to the emergence of new research. This idea concurs with the analogy of a tree of scientific research: a tree needs constant nurturing throughout its life with sunlight and rain (represented by further scientific research) but sometimes, branches or twigs will rot and become replaced with new ones (represented by new research that supersedes old research). 

Therefore, it is important that scientists continue to cater to the needs of this scientific tree, even as rotting and withering occur; even though it can be difficult to nurture at times, we are much better off as a society with it than without it. 

Written by Jesal Gandhi