“Imposter Syndrome” in science
Why do most scientists harbor so much doubt about ourselves? Why do we question whether we are smart, whether we are creative, whether we deserve to have anything that we’ve ever done see the light of day?
Many people have suggested that it’s because we are constantly subjected to criticism during competitive job applications, grant applications, and the peer-review process. Throughout these processes, other scientists are constantly chipping away at us, and we constantly chipping away at ourselves. It’s like our scientific ideas are a giant slab of marble, and we are slowly discovering whether we will be a Michaelangelo, or an unknown, unremarkable piece that ends up in a mall fountain.

Scientists are driven by questions the world, not the answers. We are ok with, “I don’t know yet,” but we scramble for the tools scrape away some of the mystery. We know that we can never prove that something is true; we can only prove that something is not true. In science (and in life), our goal is to disprove the null hypothesis. We can never be right; we can never be good; we can never be creative. We can only be not wrong, not bad, and not dull.
Even though our contribution to science may be overlooked, unimportant, or even wrong, it’s important to realize that we are still worth something. We are still made of marble. We can allow criticism to turn us into a masterpiece, dust, or some funky-looking modern art piece that isn’t understood or appreciated for another 200 years. It’s important to embrace the process.
