Questioning the Scientific Approach to New Discovery

The main issue discussed in this article seems to be rooted in one question: do prions themselves cause disease, or are they simply a symptom of a disease caused by a different agent? The “protein-only hypothesis” discussed in the article seems to support the former; it suggests that despite being a protein, prions act in a manner that is typically associated with viruses.

Beyond the scientific jargon included in this article, what piqued my interest about this topic was how the protein-only hypothesis challenges previously well-established conventions about science and biology, as well as the way in which the scientific community reacted to this challenge. The article describes the original response to Dr. Prusiner’s hypothesis as being “revolutionary” and “unbelievable,” claiming that he had to “struggle hard to convince the scientific community.” Even beyond these initial incredulities, the authors of the article describe prions as merely being “among the most fascinating biological topics of the twentieth century.” To me, the word “fascinating” seems a bit tame, vague, and potentially dismissive when it comes to a potential game-changer like the prion protein.

I don’t profess to thoroughly understand the “scientific world” enough to make any judgments on how its adherents encounter new concepts, but I’ve always wondered what kinds of waves are made in the scientific community once a “game-changing” discovery is made — a discovery so random, so shocking, so “fascinating” that it is enough to make some question long-established conventions and theories in science. Does the entire institution break down? Are the new discoveries met with resistance, protest, rejection? Do new discoveries risk harming the integrity of bedrock scientific conventions? If so, why take the risk of discovery? “Extremists” greet new discoveries with rejection, while moderates don’t seem to have much to say apart from calling it “fascinating” and, at times, conduct research that doesn’t seem to reach much of a conclusion apart from confirming the existing controversy.

Perhaps my perspective on this is limited, inaccurate, and overly cynical, but if there is such a thing as a “scientific perspective” to discovery, nature, and even science itself, its reaction to new, conflicting discoveries seems easily suspect to apathy (again, in the sense that new discoveries are described as “fascinating” and not much more) or rejection.