Hidden Threats to the Scientific Process
By: Diana Katchour
Introduction
Humans desire control. We lay down rules and manage everything from the layout of our cities to the routine of our everyday lives. Consciously, we like to feel that we have this world and ourselves under authoritative command. When we take a step back and observe the underlying realm of subconsciousness, however, we find that we are mere thistle seeds floating along at the mercy of the winds and currents of our biology. The cognitive bias that permeates our minds undeniably influences our decisions and can have significant consequences in large scale endeavors. Even in science, which may seem to be dominated by logical thought and practice, we find the effects of bias that influence research and the success of biotech companies.
Encountering Bias
In the world of science, “failure is often part of the process,” asserts Alan Leshner, CEO of the AAAS (Akst, 2011). With a success rate of just one out of ten projects in the industry of drug discovery, it is important to be aware of bigger picture (Akst, 2011). A string of failures that in reality can be attributed to bad luck, could influence a research company to become risk-averse, and to pull back on funding their projects in fear of losing more money. Although going bankrupt is an understandable concern, it is also important to remember that many discoveries in science can be attributed to perseverance and passion in the face of failure. The pharmaceutical company SmithKline is an example of this fearless approach, when they developed a gastric ulcer treatment called Tagamet (Akst, 2011). Their unrelenting research team refused to give up on their project, and found success after testing unlikely techniques and unproven approaches. The entire point of science is to figure out the unknown, and this often boils down to trial and error.
Bad luck should not be feared; however, we should also be weary of good luck. As strange as it seems, good fortune can also introduce bias into a company, which may result in its eventual downfall. Confirmation bias is just one of the culprits and a common one seen in research. When projects succeed in a research firm, it is possible to get stuck in the routine and stagnate the process. Technology advances very quickly in the modern day, and a work flow that might have worked perfectly for a few years may not be guaranteed to work forever. Confirmation bias is putting too much trust in already established processes and beliefs, and this can be incredibly dangerous for scientists. In a field that relies on flexible thinking and open minds, overconfidence can become a threat (Akst, 2011). Similarly, attributional bias infiltrates science as well. Successful projects in research are a combination of skill and luck, and it is important to not weigh one more than the other. Mistaking luck for skill can lead to attributional bias, and one may become too comfortable with their company’s success. One such example of a company is the case of Merch & Co. After seven consecutive years of success in the pharmaceutical industry, the company became confident in their business model and continued to make risky investments and decisions. Their luck eventually ran out and they failed to produce new products with their existing model (Akst, 2011). Their reluctance to change and adapt to failure resulted in their downfall.
Biology of Bias
Scientific thinking and self awareness has greatly benefited us in our struggle to mitigate bias and to make correct decisions. At a certain point, however, we are fundamentally constrained by our own biology. As much as we hate to admit it, we have constraints on our intellectual capacity and abilities. “We don’t have complete control over what we pay attention to,” says Susan M. Courtney, a professor at Johns Hopkins University in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences (Johns Hopkins University, 2016). We are studying our world while simultaneously being a part of it, and we are constantly influenced by its natural forces.
Our dopaminergic system is one example of biology’s control over us. The neurotransmitter, dopamine, shapes our perception of value and plays a role in every action we take (Anderson, 2016). When we have a rewarding experience, our brains flood with dopamine. Then, when we encounter things that remind us of these rewarding experiences, we tend to gravitate towards them for an additional rush of this neurotransmitter in our ventral striatum (Anderson, 2016). This system is what allows us to navigate our world as we value positive experiences and try to avoid negative ones. This can also explain the subconscious biases that we exhibit in our everyday lives. If we see good outcomes, even if they are based on luck, we experience unrealistic optimism and continue to expect such results in the future (Sharot, 2012). In general, humans tend to overestimate success and underestimate failure, which is perhaps why companies such as Merch & Co. became so confident and continued to take risks (Sharot, 2012). Underestimating the occurrence of negative events could be a significant threat to a company, especially those conducting research.
Conclusion
Cultivating self awareness and learning about the origins of bias are likely the best methods of overcoming its effects. Currently, there isn’t a way for us to separate ourselves from the biology that governs our thoughts and actions. We must accept that we cannot always be in control, and that forces will be constantly pushing us to make mistakes and miscalculations. Identifying instances of bias and understanding their molecular basis in the brain is the best way to move forward and conduct better research. If we are aware about the existence of confirmation and attributional bias, or of unrealistic optimism and risk-aversion, we can take steps to counteract these influences.
References
Akst, J. (2011). Balancing Biases. The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/balancing-biases-42254
Johns Hopkins University. (2016, February 11). How your brain might be secretly thwarting your New Year’s resolutions. ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211140430.htm
Sharot, T. et. al. (2012, August 21). How Dopamine Enhances an Optimism Bias in Humans. Current Biology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.053
Anderson, B. A. et. al. (2016, February 22). The Role of Dopamine in Value-Based Attentional Orienting, Current Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.062
