PhD Blog: Thoughts on research
Written by Sophie Tucker
The physical sciences in the UK emerged from the influences of Greek and Roman philosophy. When viewed in this context, the wider objective of scientific research lies in the pursuit of knowledge - scientists aim to uncover ontological truths about the universe and the space we occupy in it. Physics in the early 20th century reflected these ideas, as titans of the field like Einstein and Bohr were outwardly philosophical and considered their work to reflect a deeper understanding of the nature of the universe, as opposed to simply describing natural phenomena. Bohr’s revolutionary ideas on wave-particle duality parallel Hegel’s dialectical materialism, and as a result his work held influence in logical positivist circles of the time.
Modern physics has, to some extent, diverged from these foundations. In the UK, the physical sciences are viewed largely as a means to an end, with funding concentrating on areas of science that have healthy commercial viability. This approach has undeniable benefits - supporting science in the form of technological advancement enables innovation that greatly benefits wider society, from energy generation to vaccine development. However this granular view of science presents a dichotomy of thought - do we conduct research for the pursuit of fundamental knowledge above all else, or do we endeavour to follow scientific goals with the aim to do the most good? Further, while fields such as cancer research or renewables undeniably couple innovation with altruism, is it true that funnelling resources into pragmatic fields does more good than studying fundamental questions that evade empirical understanding? The ethical implications of this are complex, and the question of whether scientists should aim to decouple the fundamental with the moral is far-reaching.
Importantly, whilst often viewed separately, these two viewpoints can and should be synthesised in our understanding of the scientific goal. While a focus on innovation is undoubtedly a hugely important role in societal development, the benefits of studying the abstract are somewhat overlooked. Understanding the philosophical and ethical implications of science is an important part of this - the words ‘objective’ and ‘neutral’ are frequently used in describing the physical sciences, but being aware of inherent bias is imperative in achieving meaningful results, even if this means taking a step back into the abstraction of the question being asked and the assumptions behind it. The scientific consensus is dynamic - it is changeable by the reins of new evidence, it breathes and moves through a landscape of contradiction and discovery. There are no theories insurmountable to new evidence, no hard facts that cannot be upturned. Science is not immune to the paradigms that we accept and the assumptions that we conduct research under. Inherently, research is biassed, and so any ethical arguments that rely on the unfailing neutrality of science are unjustified.
The wider context of a particular research goal holds weight not only within the field, but also as a part of a holistic collective of scientific understanding. Innovation often grows in unexpected places - in 2018 a neural network originally developed to identify and categorise pastries for a Japanese bakery (BakeryScan, now AI-Scan) was applied in the identification of cancer cells. Allowing research to expand beyond the confines of individual intention is a consequence of practising open science in the research practises we uphold. But more than that, true open science relies on the study of what lies beneath each scientific goal - when we study the abstract we allow results to transcend their field, enabling inherent multidisciplinary development and coupling innovation with understanding.