Count me among the weak of science.<\/p>\n
Here I am again, feeling defensive, irate at reviewer critiques of our recent sub-Nobel prize work. Only in this case, the reviews are in my mind, yet to arrive. In fact, we haven\u2019t even drafted the paper yet! But I can foresee what will happen. After all, if I\u2019m honest, our contribution is clearly incremental.<\/p>\n
Is it a failure? Were my expectations way off, again?
\n<\/p>\n
Like you, I want to do big things in science. Hit home runs, make a splash. And when I don\u2019t, I have an immediate negative emotional response. Disappointment in myself.<\/p>\n
But when I take a breath and think about it, the disappointment makes little sense. There\u2019s no doubt we stand on others\u2019 shoulders<\/a> to see. The clich\u00e9 is completely true. To say it in different words, there are a lot of smart people who have been working on the big and small challenges in our field for a long time. Should any of us really expect to divine major things apparent to no one else?<\/p>\n I can\u2019t even claim a defense of incrementalism<\/a> is original. But I think it\u2019s important to consider the issue actively as we plan and write up our research. We need to stay sane, remember the good work that we do. Not as much as we want, maybe, but plenty to be proud of.<\/p>\n A great example of incrementalism is my own set of contributions to the weighted ensemble<\/a> method. I hope you know that I didn\u2019t invent this method! I don\u2019t feel bad about that. Even the authors, Huber and Kim, didn\u2019t invent it! A 1951 article by Kahn and Harris [\u201cEstimation of Particle Transmission by Random Sampling,\u201d National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series, volume 12] discusses the key \u201csplitting\u201d idea of WE very clearly \u2026 and goes on to credit yet someone else, none other than John von Neumann. For myself, perhaps I can claim extensions, applications, popularization of the weighted ensemble, and these of course with great collaborators, students, postdocs. Incremental stuff. But I\u2019m very proud of this.<\/p>\n Science is a team sport. But the team is not just our group members and collaborators, it\u2019s the whole community. In the big picture, even our competitors play on the same team: they help spur us to our best work! We\u2019re part of a vast network with a shared base of knowledge, goals, and ethical norms (overwhelmingly, I think). It\u2019s a great privilege to play on this team.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t all contribute to the team in the same way, and that\u2019s fine. It\u2019s good, even. Some folks are great in the lab, others are highly effective coders, data analyzers, organizers, explainers, or whatever. They all are necessary to advance science.<\/p>\n