There has been a lot of talk in the media about the loss of courtesy in modern society. By many criteria, it seems that people in general have lost a degree of politeness. Reading some of the online comments after several recent articles in The Scientist would seem to indicate that biologists have also lost their manners.

I’m thinking, in particular, of some personal attacks posted in response to Les Costello’s article in the September issue arguing that the National Institutes of Health are biased against senior scientists, since they give funding preferences to young investigators. Some of these readers commented on Costello’s recent grants, noting that he hadn’t submitted a competitive application within a few years. “I left basic academic research for one reason—people like you running the field.” “The whole system is broken, and people like you are going to keep it broken while you write papers on the backs of grad students and postdocs.”

This lack of basic manners alarms me not only because of the obvious danger to our sense of community, but also because this type of behavior could damage society’s positive perception of scientists.

Psychologists have suggested that when a group becomes stressed, it tends to lose the manners that serve to maintain normal relationships between its members. Biologists as a group are certainly under a lot of stress recently because of increased competition for funding, publications, and jobs. However, it is essential that we maintain respect for each other in our public discourse. Respecting each other is essential for real scientific dialog. If you dismiss someone’s opinion based on your feelings, you lose your objectivity. But being dismissive and emotional during public discussions also makes you look bad to other people and erodes your credibility.

Ideally, a scientist should be a dispassionate observer of the world who weighs the evidence and provides a thoughtful, well-reasoned judgment. This is clearly an idealistic vision of our profession to which we frequently fall short, mostly because scientists find it difficult to be dispassionate about anything. Yet, we should strive for this ideal if we expect that scientific opinions should be given special consideration in society.

This is important because we want people to believe in the data gathered and evaluated using the scientific method. If people aren’t confident in the people who are gathering the data, they won’t believe in its veracity. The jury’s negative opinion of the reliability of the DNA evidence gathered in the O.J. Simpson case is a glaring example of this truism.

I discovered the value of remaining objective recently when I was invited to give a lecture on the human genome project at a local church. I thought this would be a good opportunity to educate the public on why gene-sequencing data supports the theory of evolution. For most of my lecture, the audience seemed quite taken by the beauty of the common genetic ancestry of life. Predictably, halfway through my talk, a creationist started protesting that evolution was a lie. I maintained my calm and simply disagreed with him, stating that the facts of the matter did not support his claim. The more I remained calm, the more agitated he became. Finally, members of the audience asked him to leave “because they were interested in learning something.” He stalked out of the room in a frustrated huff. In this case, my dispassion bolstered my credibility.

I don’t think that my experience is unusual. Most people can tell the difference between reasonable assertions and unsupported conjecture. The problem is that when emotional outbursts are injected into a situation, any pretense of objectivity becomes lost.

In these times where science offers the best hope for progress in an increasing complex and fractious world, it would be a real tragedy if the bad behavior of some scientists compromised our reputation as neutral seekers of truth. Whether we like it or not, the behavior of each of us colors the popular perception of scientists as a whole.

Steven Wiley is Lead Biologist for the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

While I agree with the author that it is important to project calm demeanor and avoid deliberately insulting people - let's also remember that complex, borderline-political patterns of expression are not necessary in most situations.

It is OK to simply say 'I think that you are wrong and I can prove it by...' ('I think that you are right' also works fine if that's what you want to say), particularly in an online environment. All the rest is just icing on the cake (or tar in the ointment depending on what is being written or said).

As a corollary, groups of people under pressure indeed can become less polite. However it is not always true that they become rude - they can simply become succinct and to the point, not having the time or energy to spare. In some cultures or situations this can be interpreted as lack of etiquette - it is up to the individual reader to decide whether to be offended or not.

Why is the ideal of a scientist dispassionate? Where is the data, from psychology or elsewhere, that this attitude is the most productive of all possible attitudes?
Perhaps most importantly, on what authority do you arbitrate who is "bad" or "lacking credibility" based on your notion of manners?

I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of the comments on Les Costello's article- unless you believe that speaking truth to power is always rude (since those in power typically get to define manners, there may be a tautological accuracy to that).

Regardless of whether the passionate comments were the most convincing to you, they are a symptom of a very real problem of more junior scientists not feeling respected.

I've actually once met Les Costello in person, and he was reasonable and at least somewhat sympathetic to the struggles of young scientists (although I do believe he is himself sometimes passionately opinionated, in a good way). However, not everyone knows that about him, and his post was controversial. Indeed, as the whole response demonstrates, taking a controversial position is an excellent means to spark debate. That debate may be passionate, but it is not wise to dismiss the issues raised in response just because you do not personally care for that style of communication.

It's the genuine respect that is really lacking and more important in the scientific community, as well as for the general society. This means a willingness to listen and respect alternative views of others without becoming defensive or prejudiced, and willing to compromise when needed. Unless it is against a firmly established and indisputable fact, different or opposing hypotheses are plausible until proven scientifically invalid. Sadly, in my own personal experience, such genuine respect was woefully lacking among scientific colleagues and especially when political power was unevenly distributed within a research group, e.g. between PI and the rest.

Like posters before me, I also agree with the basic premise that composure and 'manners' aid in a face-to-face discussion. I of course also have to agree with the basic fact that credibility is important in the public debate.
Two key issues deserve mention, however.

1) The debate cited was not about science, it was about governance. Given the discrepancy of the number of trainees and the actual number of tenure-track positions, I think it is plain to see that we are in a serious governance crisis. As the author rightfully points out, in times of crisis, manners come second. I think it behooves every scientist well to read the signs and do their part to overcome this crisis. Asking for manners is probably not the most effective way to solve our crisis of science governance, even though the call may seem warranted in some cases.

2) One of the most convincing aspects about science is that the results do not care about manners. Even if a profusely polite and calm discussant claims that the stone, if dropped, will fall to the sky and the understandably angry and increasingly agitated scientist explains gravity in more and more hostile language - it doesn't matter which of the two discussants will drop the stone, it will still fall to the ground, convincing everybody that the calm, polite person was wrong and the angry, hostile person was right. Obviously, many scientific debates are not that unambiguous, but in the long run, data always trumps manners.

Bjoern
P.S.: In a public debate it sometimes may even hurt your cause to not show any passion for your side.

Is this the same Steven Wiley who wrote a recent article in The Scientist ("Speak Your Mind", reposted in this forum only a couple days ago) asking "Why have biologists become so polite", and noting with disapproval the ""gentrification" of public science"?

I too am dismayed by the tenor of some of the responses in these blogs. However, we also must be aware that the scientific community has the complete range of personable to mean-spirited personalities present in the general public.

What we likely are witnessing is the newfound ability to express disaffection in a public forum. Comments that are rude tend to stand out. That's not bad. This is a free society and we all benefit from that open discourse--the alternative is more chilling than the occassional rude blog.

We also should be aware that the comments posted in these open forums are self-selecting towards those with strongly held views. It's a form of publication bias that tilts discourse towards those who have be wronged in a perceived or actual fashion.

So, is the atmosphere actually ruder now than in the past? I presonally have not seen on a day-to-day level any decrease in colleagiality amongst my local colleagues locally or at meetings I attend. In fact, as indicated in a different series of articles at the Scientist, exchanges at conferences are not as passionate as they once were. I also generally have seen conditions improve for post-docs and graduate students. I know that many of the current post-docs and graduate students may disagree with that but the culture certainly looks out more for their best interests than it once did.

The major issue remains that more are desiring to pursue this wonderful and exciting career than there are positions available. One doesn't need to be cutthroat to rise to the top. But one has to be aware that they can not languish in mediocrity. Really, it has always been that way except when science was the domain of the independently wealthy dabblers.

I feel it is contrary. Too much manner has killed the science. Most of the people who is writing abuse in blog seems manner less but I feel that because of the manner they are not thrashing the scientist around but venting the frustration on blog.

When one of the supervisor suggested me to manuplate the results (threatiningly) I kept quiet due to mannerism now as the hind sight I feel that I should have kicked on his back and beaten him black and blue!

In any sphere of life it is the lack of straightforwardness is killing the profession. The straight forwardness is lacking specifically in the field of science because there is very little democracy left in Science --As suppose I would have beaten that scientist -then who would have taken me in his/her lab?

Mannerism kills.

Dr Miller presents a utopian view of science and scientists. However utopian his view, I find it difficult to deny his core argument, which is, that we need to be what we say we are (see below).

?Ideally, a scientist should be a dispassionate observer of the world who weighs the evidence and provides a thoughtful, well-reasoned judgment. This is clearly an idealistic vision of our profession to which we frequently fall short, mostly because scientists find it difficult to be dispassionate about anything. Yet, we should strive for this ideal if we expect that scientific opinions should be given special consideration in society.?

I see the bitterness in the present conversation as explicit evidence that we are not. This leads Rafaela Canete-Soler to comment:

?Sorry Dr Wiley. Last paragraph of previous post should read: The public might lose confidence in scientists when science is used for personal ECONOMIC gain and/or self-serving interests.?

This is to say that we should appear to be what we are not, so that we can hide from the public what a brawling bunch of egotists we really are.

If as Miller suggests, our credibility depends on our image, we haven't projected a good one. Witness the fact that somewhere less than half of the public are convinced that evolution has occurred and that increasing numbers of them do not believe global warming is occurring.

I do not see an easy road to utopia; many things were pretty much the same when I finished my PhD in 1972. I would have hoped they would get better. Society needs a credible efficient and productive scientific enterprise to survive the current global environmental and health threats that lie ahead. Watching scientists quibble while they are needed the most makes me fear for my grandchildren.

We seem to have forgotten that science is a philosophy, a way of looking at the world. That some of us make a living at it is a fragile bonus. Up until the 20th century most scientists were unpaid amateurs. Today, the irony is that just as science has become a paid "job", society has started to move back into superstition and mysticism. The real danger for science is that by squabbling, losing objectivity and generally displaying very human behaviour in public, we destroy what little credibility we have left. Look at the fuss over "climategate" which only happened because scientists were unprofessional in their comments about their peers through their e-mails. Criticism of the person, rather than the science, will end up costing us all as society loses interest in science, as a discipline, and further withdraws funding.

It is not manners we should be defending, but basic ethics and collegiality. In the midst of increasing demands for smaller pots of money, in the mistaken belief that all good science requires high levels of funding, in the aggression, competitiveness and growing nepotism of grant applications and papers submitted (all of which should be double-blinded) we have lost all sense of what science should be doing. Working together, not for accolades (many of which these days are misleading as they are given to the wrong people for the wrong reasons) but for the common good, for humanity.

I agree with the Dr. Wiley. We cannot blame an award recipient for the actions of a review panel. Moreover, the NIH is taking steps to insure that a reasonable share of awards to go younger investigators. The current shortage of funding lies in a lack of an appreciation in Congress for the value of scientific research. The 'anti-science' group we will always have with us, but squabbles among ourselves are seldom helpful.

While I agree with the premise of the article, that scientists should have better manners, I think using the words of a frustrated post-doc who brings up excellent points regarding why the academic system is broken is not a good example of "lack of manners". It is an example of frustration, which very many grad students and post docs feel these days. "Manners" start with the mentors/PIs. In my experience, PIs of all levels are increasingly paranoid about each other and ruthless behind each others' backs. Many do not want competition from younger scientists, even their trainees, and therefore sabatoge them or hold them back. Many purposefully hold onto data in order to manipulate the opinions of competitors/collaborators. Why? They are either scrambling to develop their career, scrambling to hold onto their career, or scrambling to crush out their competition and pad their incomes/frequent flyer miles. What is lacking is not manners, it is job security, funding, salary, and quality of life. Unfortunately, this is the environment so many people are trained in these days. The aggressive and narcissistic people survive in science these days. It is no wonder that "manners" is lacking.

Scientists as neutral truthseekers? Not so much in this very cutthroat world.

After reading this I had to go seek out the "rude" comments on the other article. If you ask me, this guy is right on the mark. You can't expect young scientists to be treated so badly for so long, and not be a little angry about it. Too many of us have just been quietly leaving science without a peep.

Here's the "offending" comment:
Talk about defending the status quo
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2009-09-01 09:33:27]
When I heard about this I knew the old guard would kick up a fuss.

The best part is "we survived the process - so can you!" This is the same logic that keeps medical residents up for 24 hours at a time when this has been proven to be dangerous to patients health.

The truth is, when a grant review committee receives the same exact grant application from a new investigator with 15 papers, and an ancient one with 200 papers, they give it to the old guy due to his "reputation" whether it is deserved or not.

The argument that young scientists are technologists with no broad reach is ridiculous - no doubt you started the same way sir, and only accumulated your integrated knowledge over a lifetime.

I left basic academic research for one reason - people like you running the field. With a payline of 10%, do you really expect a young investigator to try and build a lab and raise a family and teach? The system is now set up so that only the old established labs survive, and the few craziest young investigators willing to sleep in their labs while writing grant applications furiously have a slim chance of making it through.

You just don't realize that you are losing a whole generation of good scientists due to the lack of funding for young PIs and a ridiculous 5-6 year post-doc system that leaves you with no IRA and a slim chance of finding a decent job.

These changes MIGHT help, but they won't be enough - most of the smartest people I know realized this was essentially a lottery and left science ages ago. The whole system is broken, and people like you are going to keep it broken while you write papers on the backs of grad students and post-docs that should be earning twice what they are, and should have a reasonably predictable future but don't.

Relatives,
To lose confidence in scientists when science is used for personal gain and/or self-serving purposes, is what we all do.

There is no possible way to change a man's heart, except with love. It is the sacred path, that must enter our lives.

This world is all for defending one's self, morals, and quite frankly our work ethic. This is not receiving others, to hear, what they may have to say. One writer says, he must politely tell others, they are wrong, well what if everyone is right? And it's only about the perspective!

We need find our hearts, to know brotherhood. Evolution will save us, since, it's time. Three more years, before sacredness must be learned or Heaven will simply cleanse the Earth. We scientists all know it. The common man all know it. But we all fail to see from others perspective, to know real love, where we receive each other.

Alightfromwithin.org is a place for Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy, where truth matters, and standing up for morality, is a survival of the fittest.

So my Brother Steven, it's the children's world now, and they must learn to respect elders, who have wisdom and knowledge. This cannot change with science or with the religious man, but the integration of both worlds. Wakan Tankan (walkin and talkin) sacred is the only way home.

your devoted servant,
White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother
I bless you, I bless the world, I bless myself for you!

This comment is intended only for the author.
As they say, what rock have you been so luckily to be under? Science has no alternative. It?s too bad it has to be done by humans. Aside from the nasty person to person brutal contact sport of science, science is just not nice. I know too many who have had an attempt on their data or lost it to some other scientist, including myself. I dropped out of science in disgust decades ago and joined the counter culture. Unfortunately, the stupidity of that culture drove me back. But do not forget the larger even more sinister aspect of science like thermonuclear devises, just as a starting place. This is not new. Did you not ever read Mark Twain? How about Kirk Vonnegut? If you are so uneducated as not to know and understand the evil of science, then you should not be there. We are about to destroy the place we live on, dude. Even a caveman is smarter than that.

Please understand that I like doing science. It's just the institutions and other science people that make it so painful.

Regards, F. DeWolfe Miller

Sorry Dr Wiley. Last paragraph of previous post should read:

The public might lose confidence in scientists when science is used for personal ECONOMIC gain and/or self-serving interests.

Hello Dr Wiley,

I like very much the main theme of your article: ?manners matter!!!?. Manners can be instrumental for creating an ambience where dialogue progresses toward common understanding of the issues at hand. Rational solutions can then be found in the context of participation and opportunities for all parties involved.

Good Manners might not always be identified with politeness. Perhaps, they should also be identified with the ability to walk on other people?s shoes or even imagining yourself walking barefoot.

Good Manners might be the attribute of those who had experienced or are experiencing fulfillment. Losing your manners is certainly a possible human reaction in those searching for it without apparent opportunities.

As the English say goes: *Age before beauty*. It could be translated into: *Persuasiveness before good manners*. And persuasiveness is best exercised when one is able to walk on other people?s shoes. Or better, trying to walk barefoot.

I am not sure if the public loses confidence in science when manners are lost because there are little, if any, opportunities for new scientists or new science. The public might lose confidence in scientists when science is used for personal gain and/or self-serving purposes.

Totally agree. When I stand up to question a speaker who I think is totally wrong, or when I am the speaker and I think the questioner is totally wrong, I try very hard to remember to start by saying - "That is a very interesting point" And then try to politely and calmly show why they are wrong.
You rarely can change someone's mind. But if you make good points without emotion, often they will consider your points objectively, and then change their own mind.
You have to be dealing with rational people. Unfortunately too many US voters seem to enjoy being entertained by "Shock Jocks" rather than rational discourse.