Becoming A Scientist: Reading Reflections

The three assigned texts this week detailed various arcs of scientific training and cultural transmission. The texts delved into the acculturation processes scientists undergo throughout their paths to obtain qualifications in their fields. Such processes include not only teaching relevant subject material, but also transmitting the norms and behaviors meant to be reproduced between scientists in a given field.

In her chapter, “Pilgrim’s Progress: Male Tales Told During a Life in Physics,” author Sharon Traweek explains how various stages of a particle physicist’s education could lead them to take on gendered views of the field. This begins in undergraduate years, during which time historical (male) heroes of the field are lauded throughout textbooks. Later in training, Traweek argues that various fears motivate appropriate behavior for students: fear of appearing unqualified prevents question-asking, and fear of falling behind leads to a hurriedness to establish one’s own reputation. I found it particularly interesting when Traweek noted the tendency of high-achieving scientists to equate their fields of study to a female love object.

In Good’s analysis, “How medicine constructs its objects,” he argues that illness is not purely biological, but involves a level of existential, human suffering that it is essential for medical students to conceptualize. As a medical anthropology professor, he teaches this lesson, however feels it is at odds with the majority of conventional American medical training, which he argues objectifies and detaches the human body from the lived experience of human suffering.

In “Coming of Age in a Weapons Lab” Gusterson reviews the history and conducts interviews at the Livermore Lab, established by the US government as a response to the intensifying Korean War. Gusterson expects the people he talks to will be motivated by patriotism and conflicted about the moral implications of their work; instead he finds they are motivated by the relaxed atmosphere and consider nuclear development morally unproblematic as it is designed to save lives. One thing that stood out to me about Gusterson’s interviews was the observation that moral contemplation took place privately, not among colleagues. 

I think all three authors did well to acknowledge the cultural forces impacting their areas of investigation. The angle proved interesting as scientists featured in all three scenarios positioned themselves or their fields as above (or not beholden to) culture.  Approaching this notion critically is essential, not because cultural forces are detrimental to science as is sometimes implied, but because their presence helps clarify the purpose of scientific work beyond “science for the sake of science.”