Listen to our Sunday morning sermons at our
Sermons Page

GETTING THE MOST OUT OF SCIENCE
By Jonathan Clark

As a worker in the medical sciences, I have learned the value of good science and am always looking forward to the latest findings of scientific research. Two observations have helped me to maximize the benefits of science.  

First, scientific findings are derived by the rigorous scientific process. The scientific process of hypothesizing theories and then designing an experiment to test the hypothesis will, in the end, generate data. Data has no meaning; a researcher will analyze the data and proclaim the data’s apparent meaning. Researchers are people and will analyze through their “filters.” Sincere researchers can arrive at different conclusions by analyzing the same data. 

Second, good science is always learning, seeking, and willing to change (otherwise, it’s not good science). Therefore, today’s scientific understanding will always be at the mercy of tomorrow’s research. 

As I keep these two principles in mind when studying the latest research, it helps me to better understand what the data seems to indicate while at the same time staying clear of conjecture about what the data doesn’t indicate. 

For example, I recently read the published findings from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden that the scent of testosterone (male sex hormone) causes a response in the brain of gay men similar to the response found in women’s brains; straight men’s brains had a different response (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reported by Randolph E. Schmid of the Associated Press in the Springfield News-Leader on 5-10-05). The responses in the brain were measured by PET scans after the subjects sniffed testosterone. 

What is the data generated from this study? A list of brain responses from individuals who sniffed testosterone (and measured by a PET scan); each response was labeled with the individual’s sexual orientation. 

Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy in Ontario, Canada, commented that “the findings show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.” Based on the study, her statement seems to be an accurate analysis of the study’s data (apparently good science; it would have been more honest in avoiding scientific arrogance to have said it this way, “...the findings seem to show...,” acknowledging the uncertainty of tomorrow’s research). 

Witelson also made the statement, “It is one more piece of evidence…that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned.” As I thought about this statement, I realized that this statement is conjecture, because the study data had nothing to do with whether sexual orientation is learned, only that different brains seem to respond differently to testosterone. When scientists make conjecture statements, they need to be careful to label them as such. Otherwise, their credibility as a good scientist could be at risk. Witelson’s conjecture is her educated opinion, an editorialized conclusion arrived at through her filters that would still be in the hypothesis stage. Perhaps she (or others) could design a new experiment to test her theory. 

Witelson’s hypothesis (i.e. sexual orientation is not all learned but rather is derived from biological differences) raises the issue of which came first: Can physiological response determine sexual orientation, or does a sexual orientation choice determine physiological response? A similar issue is raised when discussing the mood disorders: Can a certain chemical mixture in the brain cause depression, or do certain thoughts and emotions determine the brain’s chemistry? 

Sorting out the difference between what scientific data seems to show and what it doesn’t show is important in getting the most out of science (maximizing science’s benefits) while at the same time avoiding the potential harm of scientific conjecture.

Jonathan Clark is an elder of Abundant Life Covenant Church and a physician in Springfield, Missouri.