IT IS IRONIC THAT MOST SCIENTISTS TODAY RECEIVE A DOCTORATE in philosophy without ever having taken a course in the discipline. As science exploded in the twentieth century, in order to stay abreast of discoveries and to acquire enough expertise to become a scientist, it became necessary to specialize earlier and in ever more restricted areas. When I graduated with a Ph.D. in 1961, it was possible to claim expertise as a geneticist and to be aware of virtually all aspects of heredity, from the molecular to the microbial, in plants and in animals, including humans. By the time I left the lab bench only two decades later, I identified my specialty as developmental genetics of the fruit fly, Drosophila.
Most of science continues to operate in the reductionist mode, focusing on a part of nature, isolating it, and controlling everything impinging on that fragment. And it has been a powerful way of knowing, providing insights that have liberated energy from atoms, taken us to the edges of the universe, and elucidated the entire sequence of the human genome. In our exuberance about our incredible discoveries, it is easy to overlook the immensity of our ignorance and to think that we are on the threshold of understanding virtually everything of importance. The elucidation of the sequence of DNA in the human genome was trumpeted as the Holy Grail of science that would generate cures for disease, explain human behavior, and enable us to control our destiny. Already scientists are backing away from those grand claims and are now hailing proteonomics, the interaction of proteins, as the real Holy Grail.
Many scientists themselves, caught up in the euphoria of discovery, have failed to recognize the weaknesses and limits of science. And certainly they are not trained or informed that there are responsibilities that accompany the practice of research, especially when carried out in universities with public funds 