“The greatest scientific advance of the last 1000 years was providing the
evidence to prove that human beings are independent agents whose lives
on earth are neither conferred nor controlled by celestial forces……
nothing was more important than providing the means to release men
and women from the hegemony of the supernatural.” (Mellman, I. and Warren,
G. (2000). The road taken: past and future foundations of membrane traffic.
Cell 100, 99–112.) In this vital mission to discredit the
supernatural, nothing has proved more i
mportant than The Origin of Species.
Here is just one nice argument from hundreds: “He who admits the doctrine
of the creation of each separate species, will have to admit that a
sufficient number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created
for oceanic islands; for man has unintentionally stocked them far more
fully and perfectly than did nature.” I had only dipped into this wonderful
book in my student days. But what a revelation for a somewhat jaded
scientist to read it now! It is not only the brilliance, farsighted and original
nature of the ideas, there is the sheer diversity of knowledge, the pervading
presence of thought, of simple direct experiments, of debate, of argument,
the consideration of other views and the style. In writing and reading
scientific articles nowadays, we become imprisoned, constrained in
what is considered appropriate and our vocabulary is reduced. Also our
sentences are stifled by fashion and by journals that kill invention and
independence with their strict word limits and their ‘house style’. Just one
example: punctuation. Darwin used everything, even the long dash and
the exclamation mark. In my scientific writing I have been frequently told that
these are not allowed — OK for great literature, but banned from scientific
usage. I don’t know why, but dulling down our scientific writing is not in our
best interest. By contrast, in Darwin’s time, Victorian fashion encouraged
a flowery style as well as intellectual freedom; he took full advantage of
both. He could write explorative and educative prose. He could spend many
pages explaining narrow but important distinctions between different
viewpoints and, time and again, one can see the outcome of careful
reading and deep reflection. Our data dominated publications, pared down
to fit them into limited space, would be much more comprehensible if there
were more argument, more explanation and more justification; indeed, if we
reflected more, I think we could make big reductions in our published pages
by making sure they carry and convey at least one message of note.
Although Darwin’s book is primarily about arguments and evidence, he
does not forget the power of a simple experiment. Just one example: he
argues that the worldwide dispersal of some freshwater plants is due to
migrating birds carrying mud on their feet; so he takes three tablespoons
of mud from a local pond and, over 6 months, found he could grow 537
plants from it. Darwin has whole chapters discussing the points of view
of others, dismissing contrary opinions with persuasive arguments. He took
time to communicate extensively with other specialists. By contrast, in
modern scientific discourse, we see the deadening hand of a new etiquette
fuelled by careerist calculations. We now have little open debate,
different views are avoided rather than confronted, controversial papers are
not quoted and their publication is resisted. But, of course, Darwin not
only had something important to say, he also did not have to keep in with
opinion-formers in order to get grants!
Peter A. Lawrence has studied the genetics of
animal design using insects for 45 years. He is
currently working in the Zoology Department
of the University of Cambridge and the MRC
Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge,
UK.
