What Ever Happened to the Scientific Conversation?

e are told from the beginning of our studies that Wthe optimal paradigm for scientific investigation is the proposition and then testing of hypotheses. Inherent in this concept is the recognition that science is the pursuit of transient truth. What we believe is true today based on the best present knowledge, may be found incorrect, or at least not entirely correct, tomorrow based on newer revelations. If this is all true, then the process of discussing and reexamining our beliefs is central to the progress of science. This competition of ideas is accomplished through a vigorous discourse: a conversation performed between rivals with opposing ideas. It is not a pursuit of pre-eminence, but rather a back-and-forth attempt to test and hone ideas through open discussion. It is the same competitive process that one sees in a duel. If you want to see a great example of this, go watch the duel scene between Westley and Inigo in the movie The Princess Bride. The interaction between the blades is as much a conversation as the words exchanged between the protagonists. The process of having the conversation is often as important as any final resolution because the interplay builds respect, and any attentive discourse generally will lead to acknowledgment of further questions of interest. It therefore is disappointing and intellectually unhealthy that we often now find ourselves enrapt in a system that does not promote, indeed often discourages, any such elements of scientific discourse. Dogma is clearly the enemy of truth. We generally celebrate the triumph of individual enlightenment over the accepted truth, by Gallileo, Einstein, Mitchel, Watson and Crick, and others. But at the same time we maintain a significant intolerance for new ideas that challenge dogma. Rather than encouraging testing of ideas that run counter to the prevailing doctrine, we generally reward work that seeks to confirm or just expand on established principles. Too many good ideas die a miserable death because investigators choose not to take on contentious opinions, especially against established scientific luminaries. Because competition for grants and publication in higher-impact journals has increased over the past 20 years, the willingness for investigators to present publicly and discuss their ideas has been increasingly stifled. The shortening of grant funding cycles to 3–4 years has further inhibited the public airing of new ideas until they reach a final stage of publication. This atmosphere of academic fear and loathing has resulted in near-irreparable damage to the critical flow of ideas that is central to the scientific conversation. Why is this discourse important? At its heart, this conversation is a discussion of ideas and their meaning. The promulgation of an open discussion of ideas would seem the highest ideal for academic science. Nevertheless, our success as academics