Discuss
To all my science people out there, I would like to pose a question:
What motivates you to do science? Is yours a very practical motivation , e.g. curing a particular disease, a sort of long-reaching intellectual motivation, e.g. adding to the sum of all knowledge for known and also unknown purposes, or a theoretical/quasi-mystical kind of motivation, e.g. just to find out how Things Work because it's cool or to bolster your understanding of the universe?
Obviously these things are not mutually exclusive, but I wonder how we veiw ourselves, our own motivations. I was chatting with Springy about the "usefulness" quotients of our various fields of study, perceived and/or real.
I'm not putting it very well, but I'm interested in what people have to say about this.
What motivates you to do science? Is yours a very practical motivation , e.g. curing a particular disease, a sort of long-reaching intellectual motivation, e.g. adding to the sum of all knowledge for known and also unknown purposes, or a theoretical/quasi-mystical kind of motivation, e.g. just to find out how Things Work because it's cool or to bolster your understanding of the universe?
Obviously these things are not mutually exclusive, but I wonder how we veiw ourselves, our own motivations. I was chatting with Springy about the "usefulness" quotients of our various fields of study, perceived and/or real.
I'm not putting it very well, but I'm interested in what people have to say about this.
posted by Joolya at
7:54 AM
11 Comments:
I definitely fall into category three... which probably explains why I started out in engineering but decided that living things were so much cooler when it came to the figuring out part. If taking something apart to see how it works brings a benefit to humanity or merely increases our collective knowledge, that's just a bonus. I'm all about the curiosity...
I have a feeling more people fall into category 3 than is generally assumed - if only because grant proposals HAVE to start with a paragraph about why this research will benefit humankind (ie the taxpaying public)!
Until recently I was entirely category three. This is perhaps not surprising since I was doing mathematical physics, and the whole point is to strip more and more unessential bits from what you're doing.
Then I changed fields: I'm working on tuberculosis now. There was some slight hint of category one involved in this, but it's settling back into the murk whence it arose.
Probably almost all scientists fall into category three. I think you'd go mad otherwise.
I got into science 'cos I was good at it and liked finding out how things worked. I also like solving problems so every day is like chipping away at a big crossword puzzle or somthing.
When I worked in industry there was some of the first catagory and part just getting something to work was fun.
Now I'm motivating myself with catagory 2 and failing, so I'm trying to think of the nice job i'll get when I've done the PhD.
I've always liked taking things apart, which often had disastrous results when I was younger and hadn't figured out how to put them back together yet. That's why I'm a physical chemist now after getting my bachelor's in biochemistry - I'd much rather do chemistry with a wrench in my hand than a vial of something. Plus, I think pumps and lasers and instruments that you build yourself are pretty cool.
Going back farther, I chose to major in chemistry because the humanities were so damn boring. My parents, my teachers, everybody expected me to go for journalism or english or something (aced my verbal SAT and AP english test), but I was just bored with it. Science was harder, so I did that, and I'm very glad I did.
I think I (a physics grad student currently working on my doctoral dissertation) am--like, apparently, most of the others who've replied here--mostly in category 3. I think there may be some of #2 involved, but I think #3 is dominant. #1...not so much, really. Not that understanding the spectral distribution of the solar ultraviolet radiation during coronal events probably has much immediate practical application anyway...
For some reason, this thing is not letting me post my answer.
I'll try a very brief comment:
I'm in this because biology is just seriously, seriously cool...but I *started* in this because I got very ticked off at the pseudoscientific BS being peddled over the internet, and I wanted to be able to explain to people I knew *why* it was bullsh**, in detail, logically, and have the knowledge necessary to back it up.
And NOW I want to go into research because in the last few years I've been seeing more and more how medical technology affects lives. No particular issue, there are a lot that need work. It's all fascinating beyond words, but it is also practical -- both motivations in equal measure, I think.
Matt, you used to be an engineer?! Man, I started in biology but ended up an engineer. I'm still drawn to science more than engineering, but I couldn't live with myself if my chosen field of research ended up being something incredibly mundane without benefit to society.
To be ideological, I think option 2 is what draws me the most to science, but of course the point of adding to humanity's knowledge is that hopefully some of it will be useful.
Somehow my comment didn't make it yesterday, so I'll try again . . .
I think I'm a combo of #1 and #3, with a tad more of 1.
I was originally drawn to science (specifically genetics & psychology) because of a natural curiosity of how & why people did what they did.
I also am very civic-oriented and want to save the world. To me, science was one way in which I could contribute to the world at large. When I applied to grad school I wanted to go into Alzheimer's research, but ended up choosing a CF lab.
However, one of the reasons that I want to get out of research is because, while science is unquestionably useful and necessary for curing disease and solving all sorts of issues, it's a bit too hands-off for me. Even though my research may one day - in the distant future - help CF patients, I don't feel like I'm doing anything to really help anybody.
Hmmm...I have to admit that the reason I chose engineering in the very beginning was because I thought it would lead to a good-paying job. No lofty ideals about helping society or wanting to add to the sum of knowledge or even wanting to know how things worked. I was good at math, so my mom thought I could do engineering, which my parents thought would pay well, and help me escape blue collar life. Categories 1, 2, and 3 are aspirational luxuries that the working class either can't afford or doesn't often think about.
That said - I did love math. I just liked it, just liked the way it worked and the way my brain worked when I did math. As time went on, I loved my engineering classes, I liked learning what I was learning and I wanted to learn and do more. But the pleasure was personal and selfish - and the desire to learn more was because I just wanted to know it for myself. I told myself and others that I wanted to cure cancer, contribute to society, add to the sum of all knowledge, and later on, be a role model for young women, and all those things were true at various stages with varying amounts of intensity. But underneath it all what I wanted was to learn and do because I liked it, because it made my mind feel good, and because I liked having that knowledge in my brain, that skill in my hands. I liked it the way I liked reading a good novel or seeing a really excellent movie or going to an art museum. It brought me pleasure.
I did science and engineering for love.
This is different from category #3, I think, because the finding out how things work was not the important part. That is, the goal was not the important part - getting to the answer was not the important part - although that was part of it. The PROCESS was the important part, the experience, the doing of it, the feelings I had while I did it and how it pleasured me.
Do you have sex to better understand the universe? Or because it feels good? Yeah. That's why I was motivated to do science and engineering. It felt good.
I like doing science because I know it will have a practical application at some point, but I don't have to be the one to apply it. I wouldn't like science that didn't have some kind of foreseeable application, although I heard someone say that even super basic science contributes to the legacy of a culture, just like art or music. I kind of liked that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home