Does Science Inhibit Critical Thinking?

Originally written: 06/27/16

A thought on science education. A recent observation has told me that it seems like critical thinking and reasoning skills tend to decline as one gets involved in the sciences. It may be that science is taught as a fact in its classes where it leads to more analytical thinking and not critical thinking. It seems as though critical thinking, or the ability to withdraw points of view and debate them as such are found more in disciplines where there is a lack of perceived truth. Many scientific theories are that (perceived truth), supported by evidence, and nearly set in stone. Only science education that explores research and development encourages critical thinking in the sciences as newfound discoveries birth new theories to be debated.

2021 Additions:

It’s odd to read this entry that I wrote five years ago now. I wasn’t even done with my bachelor’s yet! But I remember why I had this thought in the first place. In the US, those who want to go to medical school take a test known as the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT). The MCAT is divided into four parts; Physics/Biochemistry, Critical Analysis and Reasoning, Biological Sciences, and Psychology/Sociology. When I was studying and doing graded practice assignments for Critical Analysis and Reasoning, I would notice that my scores would fluctuate and were most dependent on what homework was I working on at the time. If I was doing something Organic Chemistry, or Biochemistry related, then I would score lower. If I was working on a sociology paper, I would score higher. This was me trying to explain why that was.

However, if I simply and quickly think about my life in the past few years as a professional scientist, this brief note to myself touches on some wider phenomenon. As a scientist and at one point a medical school applicant, I can’t help but realize how unequipped many medical professionals and even scientists are unprepared to deal with scenarios that deal with competing theories. I put a lot of the blame on the study of pathophysiology and biochemistry which lies at the heart of science and medicine. To better illustrate what I mean, let me present a quick scenario:

Scenario: Genes and ALS

A few years ago, I was working in a lab where we studied Amytrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and we had come across a notable paper showing that a highly regarded geneticist had completed a genome wide study and found a new gene linked to ALS development [1]. It’s a great discovery as the article referenced claims because we have a new target that we can use to try and create drugs that bind it and potentially have a treatment for ALS, a very debilitating disease. Now, this would be great if it wasn’t the fact that there are over 20 genes and genetic defects known to cause ALS as seen in the image below [2]. and that this repeated process of genetic discovery followed by drug targeting has only lead to one drug that had any beneficial effects for ALS patients [3].

Figure 1: A graphic showing all the different genes that develop defects that may lead to ALS. The gold box indicates "runs in the family" ALS.

So, as scientist allegedly trained in the art of critical thinking. The field continues to devote many resources to the genetic study of ALS [4] [5]. I’ve proposed before to other scientists to rather explain and explore why is it that so many different genetic mutations and defects lead to the same physiological outcome and phenotype. Another good question to pose is that much of what is being shown leads at least me to think that there are likely multiple environmental factors at play with this disease. However, since pathophysiology is primarily concerned with cellular and subcellular mechanisms a blind spot develops about whether there are other background factors at work leading to the genetic and physiological changes that give rise to ALS [6].

Figure 2: An image showing classical pathophysiological thought about ALS onset and development.

Instead, the scientists that I worked with and collaborated with on this disease would often respond to my question with hope that more genes could be found that would account for more cases of ALS, or that some protein related defect would be able to account for the fact that 90% of ALS cases are spontaneous and can’t be linked to family related genetic issues, and that 80% can’t be explained by genetic cases at all [2]. All with the same intention that a drug could be screened, developed, and trialed for treatment.

And this is just one example of such faulty logic about thinking about the disease. I don’t blame the researchers for continuing down the path of research that they do. After all, everything is a multi-piece puzzle. However, it’s the thinking behind the research is what I find faulty, which is a symptom of how scientific knowledge is taught to scientists. The set-in-stone mentality of scientific evidence, methods, and ideas lead to myopic research frames that ultimately slow down research progress. There are many other such cases and much more recent ones, such as the rush to discredit certain medications for the treatment of said disease by the medical and scientific community at large for not wanting to deal with multiple competing theories for treatment. However, I will have to leave this thought here for now.

References

1. http://web.alsa.org/site/PageNavigator/pr_032118.html
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6527847/
3. https://www.alzforum.org/therapeutics/riluzole
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089662732030653X
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525001621001957
6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21842586/