From Researcher Condemns Conformity Among His Peers:
Journalists, of course, are conformists too. So are most other professions. There’s a powerful human urge to belong inside the group, to think like the majority, to lick the boss’s shoes, and to win the group’s approval by trashing dissenters.
The strength of this urge to conform can silence even those who have good reason to think the majority is wrong. You’re an expert because all your peers recognize you as such. But if you start to get too far out of line with what your peers believe, they will look at you askance and start to withdraw the informal title of “expert” they have implicitly bestowed on you. Then you’ll bear the less comfortable label of “maverick,” which is only a few stops short of “scapegoat” or “pariah.”
and
Conformity and group-think are attitudes of particular danger in science, an endeavor that is inherently revolutionary because progress often depends on overturning established wisdom. It’s obvious that least 100 genes must be needed to convert a human or animal cell back to its embryonic state. Or at least it was obvious to almost everyone until Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University showed it could be done with just 4.
The academic monocultures referred to by Dr. Bouchard are the kind of thing that sabotages scientific creativity.
Mike,
More fun stuff from Eugene Koonin just published…
Search for a ‘Tree of Life’ in the thicket of the phylogenetic forest
I like the three authors openess and willingness to look at failures as well as the new horizon ahead and the range of opinions that are truly out there, but rarely mention in public media today. Its a big “we dunno” right now.
A sample paragraph:
This is refreshing open discussion. Why can it not be discussed as such in Textbooks, Universities and even high school levels like this? Politics?
Comparison of Tree topologies is not a bad idea, better than what we have.
From a computer science perspective, this makes more sense to me personally. Core Programs vs Called Subroutines or Nodes on a Network Trunk connected to Hubs, etc.
oops, forgot to end blockquote above…
Here are a few more interesting highlights…
So, essentially, this to me seems a possibly biased study to begin with? I realize the need to narrow down candidates for study, but essentially this elliminates the fruit of the tree thats already fallen. Not intentionally, but they have little to work with that is not riddled with mutations and HGT, etc.
This gives us a hint of the current problem and why being open in the discussion is good. Science simply cannot deny the problem anymore is not just about concept, but of raw data input being modified over billions of years if you like.
I thought this might be interesting to you. Translation and transcription as “nearly universal trees” is interesting especially since the non-coded regions also are in these areas.
and then… possibly the opening of the beginning of the end… a coup de gras to TOL….
Nor is reconciliation any clearer under the Biological Big Bang model. “Compressed Clado-Genesis?” Big Bang? Or just plain old Genesis? I realize they see this as millions of years still. I’m not going to argue about time. But I find it interesting there is an admission of genetic explosions or burst of information generation now in Biology openly discussed as possible alternatives. Glad to see it.
Theres the rub. They were dealing with those few in this study. Outside the small 102 NUTs, there is no consistency in the forest at least for now in this study. And even the consistent ones may all be influenced by HGT.
Wow… thank you… finally. This is not only a huge admission, but a death “TOL” for Darwin’s original theory. So where does that lead them and/or the Design/UnDesigned debate?
Certainly, lets open it all up again for many trends of related Design investigation. They’re willing to leave the metaphor TOL intact as a matter of “convenience” …. hmmmm. Even if it is “obsolete?”
This is so refreshing. Everyone should now be allowed at the table without fear of losing jobs or glass ceilings due to holding minority opinions critical of Darwinian theory.
Many Trees of Life in a Forest is similar to what Creationist have been saying for a long time. There should be a chance at common ground in some areas. That diversity exist within multiple Trees in the Forest of Life.
The only thing left untouched after this paper and other recent findings is the inability to admit the big elephant in the room called Design.
They did not kill off unguided evolution. Thats fine, it is not part of their research or the study.
But, I think as you argued Michael elequently not long ago regarding Gradualism, the evidence now shifts to Design. And this is the final nail in the coffin.
Wrapping up, current research and a shift in growing opinions show that essentially
1) gradualism as defined by Darwin does not exist
2) no single TOL, but multiple Trees
3) regulatory systems as CORE across the spectrums
4) non-coded regions become more important
5) Selfish Genes tanked, obliterated
6) a network of systems communicating programmatically
7) Genetic differentiation across cells that are functionally dependent upon tissue type, organ type and transport.
Because Biology for the longest time was not based in hard sciences, it has taken decades to allow cross-disciplinary research to attain new insights into life’s origins, blueprint and mechanims, plus networking complexity.
And only recently with the advent of widespread use of computer technology and design has the concepts began to change over to recognition of Design attributes.
It is fun to see this happening, to be alive at a time of revolutionary change in science ahead of us.
One final comment or question finally related to your post about Conformity.
Are we finally seeing the breaking down of the current Darwinian dogma? I hope so. Koonin’s, et al., study seem to indicate so.
Now, if they’ll only admit that Design in biology can be a robust program for research.