SARS-CoV-2 Spike Peptides Trigger Nociceptive Responses Through Spinal TLR4 Pathways.

In 1963, Nobel Prize-winning immunologist Peter Medawar presented a controversial idea on BBC radio, that the scientific paper was a fraud []. But he did not mean it in the way you might think. Scientific fraud does happen (both then and now), but he meant something more fundamental about the format of the scientific paper. His argument was that the structure of papers tells a false story about how science is done. Papers state the problem to be investigated, the way it was investigated, and the investigations performed, and arrive at the conclusion(s) drawn. Medawar argued that this structure implies scientific research is purely inductive (drawing general conclusions from specific data), leaving almost no role for the scientist except as a neutral note taker. The scientific paper is a very sanitized version of how research works, but it remains the main method by which we communicate science. In the age of artificial intelligence (AI) are Medawar’s arguments about papers still valid, and what can we learn about how we (humans) do science? We seldom talk about the craft of science, choosing to focus on the data rather than the journey by which it arose. But underneath that data, there is a process that we should consider. The first step is the hypothesis. In the sterile language of papers, these emerge fully formed. But Medawar stated that most hypotheses “arise by guesswork” []. The word guesswork seems removed from the idealized view of scientists applying cold logic at the cutting edge of understanding, bringing it more into the realms of creativity []. But it is not a negative statement. I agree with Medawar when he said that, “scientists should not be ashamed to admit […] that hypotheses appear in their minds along uncharted byways of thought” []. There is an inception point. A moment before which the idea did not exist. Creativity has a central role in science; Medawar described it as “adventures of the mind” []. I would insert the word human before mind. In order to do science, you need imagination. It is what makes us scientists and it is ultimately the most rewarding part of the job. AI cannot do this. It is an important tool, especially with regards large datasets that the human brain cannot process, but it cannot imagine. Having come up with the hypothesis, we then need to be selective about the studies undertaken. Papers, as written, suggest a pre-ordained path, but the journey is necessarily messier. They do not reflect the untaken roads, but those roads less travelled are just as important as those taken, and the human scientist has a critical role in the whole process, drawing on experience (and sometimes luck) to direct the study.