CANCER’S LEADING THINKERS. TOGETHER IN ONE ROOM. SENTIMENTS TOWARD KINDNESS IN SCIENCE
CLARK C. CHEN, MD, PHD DIRECTOR, BRAIN TUMOR PROGRAM AT BROWN HEALTH STORY BY SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS W. KIMRYN RATHMELL, MD, PHD, MMHC CEO OF THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER
As physician-scientists, we have come to appreciate the profound cultural divide between clinical practice and basic science research. Fundamentally, the patient-doctor interaction is built upon human connection, where excellence in clinical care is generally met with gratitude. A well-crafted surgery, a life-altering decision, and compassionate gestures are recognized by both those we serve and from our peers. This feedback loop reinforces empathy and reminds us that medicine, at its core, is a relational practice. Excellence in scientific inquiry, by contrast, is built on rigorous scrutiny and criticism. That rigor is largely implemented through anonymized peer review, a system designed to protect objectivity. At the same time, the system can also foster a tone that feels impersonal, harsh, or even adversarial. When criticism is delivered without names or faces attached, it becomes easier to forget the human effort behind obtaining the data. Over time, this dynamic has made harshness seem like the norm, a pattern we internalize and unintentionally teach to our trainees. The consequences of this culture are not abstract. Harsh or dismissive reviews take a real toll on morale, creativity, and the willingness to take intellectual risks. In an era of dwindling funding, when every submission feels existential, a cutting critique can land not as scientific discourse but as a personal blow. It erodes confidence, narrows ambition, and pushes talented scientists toward safer, smaller questions. Worse yet, many talented individuals simply leave the field altogether. While it can be argued that those who do not enjoy this “scientific” process never truly belong, this argument collapses under even modest scrutiny. Scientific discovery is inherently unpredictable, and history shows that breakthroughs come from every background, and working style. If our culture pushes out anyone, we are shrinking the very pool of talent capable of generating novel insight. “Kindness in science should not be misconstrued as a compromise; it is a catalyst for resilience, innovation, and shared progress.” Yet there is a path forward to build a community that encourages honest, rigorous discussion while remaining both supportive and kind. Scientists are driven by curiosity, and even in a competitive landscape, the desire to expand discovery is stronger than the forces that divide us. Delivering candid, constructive criticism is easier said than done. Unlike leadership or conflict‑management training, there is almost no structured preparation for giving scientific feedback that is rigorous yet not unduly harsh. Given the demands placed upon scientists, the last thing any of us needs is another mandatory training module. Yet the absence of guidance leaves a real gap in how we support one another.
6
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease