No scientist is an island

Tackling the myth of the scientist as a loner and the lone genius. Both are wrong and damaging. A recent article that science can be for loners is true, but misses the point.

We fight the myth of the social loner not because they aren't worthy people, but because they are widely perceived to be the norm (or even the exclusive demographic) in science. Science is apparently for people who end up talking to potted plants at parties, not nightclub-going "cool" people. In reality, science has the unusual position where the loners are seen as dominant. They don't need defending, so in this peculiar case it's the extroverts who have an image problem. That's why we fight the myth of social loners - to promote an environment suitable for everyone. That does not mean that loners aren't welcome.

Then there's the far more damaging myth of scientists as lone geniuses who are too cool for school, as though a single rogue professor can come along and overturn decades of research through nothing more than their sheer intellect. It doesn't work like that.

We fight the myth of the academic lone genius for entirely different reasons : because it undermines academia and the need for collaborative science. Virtually no-one makes a really significant contribution to science without at the very least reading the work of their forebears. People just aren't that smart. It may be nice to think that you can overturn decades of science in an afternoon with no formal training, but you can't. The lone genius myth fuels the fire of those who are convinced scientists are all ivory-tower closed minded snobs.