Post 14: Are scientists obsessed with the ‘truth’❓
Published:
I once heard that scientists are obsessed with “truth,” or at least with the truth conveyed through data. However, sometimes there may be more important things than truth.
I discussed this with one of my advisors, who told me that there are indeed times when one has to decide how to present results, as they can lend themselves to misinterpretation; and he himself had to weigh this in his work, as it involved individuals prone to discrimination.
What’s the point of this? He Jiankui —the scientist who first edited the genome of twins using genetic engineering— has returned to the public eye. He intends to publish the details of how the genetic engineering process and the clinical study were conducted, but only if accepted by “high-prestige” journals like Nature or Science.
What Jiankui did is unacceptable in my opinion and in the opinion of many others. Moreover, holding onto this information tightly for publication solely in such journals reveals even more his desire for “prestige” at all costs. However, this case made me question again: Should such information be published?
Genetic engineering in humans is something that will eventually arrive and become normalized. If this information is published:
- Who would it really benefit?
- Is it more important to know this or to “guard” against its potential consequences?
- If published, would it open the door to something we can’t control? Should we control it?
- Should the information about all the authors involved be included, even if doing so puts them at (possible) risk?
This gives us a lot to reflect on. But after all, “there is no path, we make the path by walking.”