“Do you want to do the kind of work where you can only win by thinking differently from everyone else?”

– Paul Graham in one of his recent essays.

My instinctual answer to that question is yes. I suspect most, if not all scientists, would give the same answer. Coming up with novel ideas that no one has ever thought of before is the ultimate task in science, one which cannot be done without thinking differently from everyone around you. The ability to do so may even be a defining feature of a successful scientist. Then why the hell is scientific education selecting for conformity?

As undergraduates, we are marked on our ability to solve problem sets with defined correct answers. We are ranked based on our ability to get to the right answer on exams. Essays have marking schemes and a marker who evaluates the writing based on his or her notions of what makes a good essay. Practicals are all about following steps in a manual with subsequent tests to check our understanding of the data we generated. The one who gets the predetermined answer right the most times wins. The one who conforms to the standards set by the examiners/markers wins.

I get that it’s hard to apply any other approach when there are 300 students to teach and their performance needs to be evaluated. But at the same time, I think we need to be more aware that we are essentially selecting for conformity by picking promising future scientists from a pool of undergraduates based, at least in part, on their university marks.

You could argue that the students with the highest marks are also the most motivated ones and granted, motivation is essential to have in science. But is it the right kind of motivation? I think the motivation to do well in undergraduate courses is very different from the motivation it takes to pursue scientific research. At least for me, it was an empty, externally driven wish for success that motivated me during my undegraduate studies, very different from the internal curiosity that motivates me to pursue scientific questions.

Once we get into the world of working scientists, you would think that the environment is set up to promote bold, original thinking. Yet funding agencies are risk averse – it is difficult to get funding for ideas that go against the accepted paradigm, at least without convincing preliminary data. The difficult academic job market makes early career researchers unlikely to risk their potential future career doing science that is difficult to promote and has a high chance of “failing”. It is simply not easy to pursue ideas brought on by thinking differently in today’s scientific environment.

Don’t get me wrong, though. We need all kinds of scientists, not only those who want to overturn paradigms and go against the grain (I wrote about this in Snow ploughs and salt trucks). We need scientists who fill in the gaps in knowledge and replicate previous experiments. We need scientists who promote and engage in science beyond the academic sphere. But we shouldn’t have a system where you lose by thinking differently from everybody else, be that in education or in scientific practice.

Finally, let’s be clear about something. If all you do in science is take distance from existing work and adopt the contrarian stance on every point, you are not really thinking differently. Critical thinking involves choosing your battles, which facts to question and which to accept. Perhaps that’s the most difficult aspect of all - knowing when to think differently.