Presidential addresses pose problems. Should one review
some area or report a new piece of research; or should one
be less predictable? I have chosen the latter, inspired by a
BBC radio talk given by Sir Peter Medawar (1964). The
talk, ‘Is the scientific paper a fraud?’, introduced a series
about how scientific work is really done. Medawar, a
biologist and Nobel Laureate, concluded that the scientific
paper is a fraud because it misleads the reader, indeed
generally lies about the making of scientific discoveries,
which are usually presented as well-planned, objective,
logical and dispassionate. Scientists, he wrote ‘should not
be ashamed to admit, as many of them apparently are
ashamed to admit, that hypotheses appear in their minds
along uncharted byways of thought; that they are
imaginative and inspirational in character; that they are
indeed adventures of the mind.’
There followed a series of talks by the likes of Otto
Frisch, Edward Bullard, Tom Cottrell and R. V. Jones
which amply demonstrated Medawar's conclusions.
Finally there was a summary by a historian and philosopher,
J. W. N. Watkins (1964), which commented on
the conventional style (‘didactic dead-pan’) of scientific
papers: ‘if natural scientists … took to writing in a candid,
uncensored, autobiographical way, setting out their ideas
in their natural order, didactic dead-pan would gradually
fall into discredit outside science too. A gratuitous barrier
to mutual comprehensibility would have faded away.’ We
should heed these words at a time when science has never
been so successful in developing understanding of natural
phenomena; but a time also when it has abysmally failed
to retain public confidence, partly through alienation with
its jargon, partly through the arrogance of some of its
practitioners, and partly through the suspicion which
harnessing of science for exploitative interests naturally
brings.
I have a story to tell about how ideas have developed
in understanding the role of algae in shallow freshwater
ecosystems and I shall tell it in a way that Medawar and
Watkins would have approved of. Recently I received a
questionnaire asking me which of several things determined
what research I do. It had much of the standard
terminology of bureaucrat-driven management: Foresight
exercise; Competitiveness; Research assessment exercise;
Patents; Grant income. It was redolent with the terminology
of money, power and influence, none of which
have much relevance to the research I do or why I do it.
I think that for me, at least, doing research is one way of
understanding myself, and my needs, and therefore,
possibly, the needs of others. What I do, how I do it, and
how I interpret the data are functions of my past
experience and of lucky opportunities that have arisen.
They have little to do with forward planning and I do not
believe that I am unusual in any of this.