Being humane: Why Science is often far away than not

When I was younger, there were few professions that seemed to matter to humankind as a whole. Being a Scientist working on biological enigmas definitely seemed like one of them. One of the careers which will make humanity's existence better. How very wrong I was. Well, at least partly.

Ever since I stepped into the world of 'Science', hardly does a day pass without a colleague saying, "I slept at 4 am, I was working on X." And usually the responses are in the line of "Wow", "Great!", "How do you do it?". Having been on the former side mostly, I know why Scientists do it. There's a heroic ring and a real kick to working late, over time and extra.

Modern world has embraced working over time as a golden quality to have, to be successful. In every field there are innumerable examples of leaders who advertise for 4 hour sleep routines which they attribute their ability of 'being-on-top-of-things' to. People who want to have normal 9-5 routines are shunned as not-motivated. Maybe they get a ton of money after that schedule, or power or something as influential. So what do crazy work schedules in Science give you, faster betterment of humanity? Like in COVID times? You wish.

The sheer prejudice of someone saying, wanting to have a life outside research is bad, is demotivating in itself. What if someone was just more organised? What if they were good at more than one thing, that is, something other than Science? What if someone measures life not only in terms of h-indices and awards, but also in terms of being there for their loved ones? Or a much common, trivial, yet relatable choice- what if someone refused to be addicted to a brain stimulant, be it coffee or tobacco, in order to be able to work otherwise impractically long hours?

There were few years were I ignored everything else other than Science. I spent near 14-20 hours in the lab frequently, and even when I would take breaks, I would be anxious to get back to the lab. Sounds familiar? But eventually I decided I wanted to be also in touch with my true nature, being creative not only in Science, but also other things which I was fairly good at since childhood. Because life happens even when Science can't stop. Humans still run Science and cyborgs are still fictitious. When I did step down from my "workholics' throne", to my dismay I then had a phrase thrown at me frequently, "Not fit for Science".

What makes someone have a re-look at their choices? Failure. And it's inevitable in Science. But how many times do we say that loud? When a trainee fresh from undergrad courses walks into the gleaming lab with a glitter in the eye and a dream of curing the world of a disease, or even winning the Nobel prize, who tells them that it's a game of perseverance? Who tells them it isn't like a semester-based course where you are rewarded evenly when you put in work and mostly the equation of work to output is one plus one equals two? How many seniors admit that they made mistakes too, or they too had trouble with a problem? When the imposter syndrome finally hits the young researcher, how many tell them it's perfectly normal to feel that way? More often they get to hear, "Probably you didn't try enough. Or maybe you are just not up to it." Instead, how many say, "But we are only human, try once again tomorrow"?

Incidentally some Scientists who carve out their own paths without much mentoring turn out to be terrible mentors as well. "I could do this in those days, so why can't you now?" The hidden reality is that such people believe this is the only way to do it, which may not be true. There's only one thing that can be said here, broken people need help. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to project their inward trauma on others, especially their subordinates. This is why its an endless cycle in Science, of toxic mentors and their toxic students who learn to bully subordinates. The ones who resist or fight the toxic system are laughably called "weak", while the ones who go with the flow are "Ideal Scientists."

Maybe it could have worked a few centuries ago. A crazy scientist with a crazy schedule, no other aim in the world other than the problem that is focused in their myopic vision. No one could be hurt if they were mean or self-centered or delusional about how Science is what is running their life. There is nothing humane about neglecting loved ones or even yourself in the quest for unearthing scientific mysteries. If we were all to aim to become emotionless robots, sure, why not? Twenty hour work times should be the norm. Why have days in a week at all?

Present day Science is more about a people's job than anything. How you get along with all the people around you play a part in your own progress. If the choice some make is to continuously bring others down to feel like they are better, we will obviously lose good people in Science. Ultimately people whose lives had more meaning than p=0.049 would choose to step away, but they might be scarred forever. When someone chooses to pursue research, it should already speak of their commitment, but then their commitment is repeatedly tested in the ability to not break down emotionally. On what terms are these fair? If the good people (humans?) in Science weren't spending hours assuaging their wounds dealing with toxic people, we could definitely have more progress.

A simple situation where this can be seen is during question answer sessions. There are people who ask questions deliberately to bring the person and their Science down, not to make it better. Particularly shocking are scenarios were Scientists much senior and well established gain ego boosts by bullying younger, less read students. For the senior it might be five minutes of fun, but the student may never be the same. Where in the process of questioning of Science, is there an instruction to forget that it's a human being in front of you? But of course, Science doesn't deal with human-like manners does it? It's always somehow above humanity, something of the universe and not to be influenced by the subjects that pursue it. It may not be obvious, but there's much info out there to prove how who does Science influences what Science is undertaken. Science is as fallible as the people doing it.

Even within Science, the choices made are judged. Why is Scicomm considered a softer option? If everyone could do it, why is it that a layman feels like most Scientists speak in an incomprehensible language? What were you to glean by doing Science which humans cannot understand, if you claim that you are working for the betterment of humanity? Why are those who choose academia versus industry considered a better scientist? Maybe the person who joined industry just really needed the money or even better, knew themselves that their strengths lie in commercial settings. It's a never ending rat race, even after years of specialization each person in Science put in. The toll these years take on mental health have been shouted from the rooftops by brave hearts of Science and yet most Scientists act like- those are the things that matter to the weaklings, the humans.

Every discriminated person in Science is going to struggle whole of their lives to believe they belong. Some get good at "fake it till you make it", but the rest stumble and struggle every time they make a mistake, every time they hear a no, every time they are rejected. I have heard of women being proud of aborting babies for Science. I have heard of women being bullied for choosing family over Science. I have seen endless sacrifices. And yet I'm not convinced any of these sacrifices at the divine altar of Science were needed; they were all just the whims of toxic people in Science. Even graver are stories where some are pushed to the brink by enduring sexual harassment, while the most unfortunate ones are those who chose Science, and also had to choose to end their lives. If you think about it, the field isn't even that lucrative to match all the drama and trauma that goes with it! Then why on earth are we doing this?!?!

As for me, every time I'm told I don't belong, I think to myself: Maybe it's okay not to belong. Maybe I can never choose Science over humanity. There will be those who will call me a whiner for writing this. Weak. An insignificant noise in the background. But let me tell you this. I am a person who skips sleep and meals to do things, for days together. Not only Science, lots of other things too. Some of them since my childhood, even before most 'Scientists' actually started working towards 'Science'. I would still do it for Science, but on my terms. Not because only then will I be called a 'Scientist', when I choose a derailed life over a balanced one.

I know that there are hundreds of professions out there which demand sacrifice and moral fiber or whatever you want to sugar-coat it with. Yes, when it's called for, like now, in a pandemic, let's do it. For the whole of humanity. I signed up for being a Scientist, but never at the price of subtracting the human in myself.