American Scientist

To the Editors:

In his recent column, Roald Hoffman ("The Tensions of Scientific Storytelling," Perspective, July–August) makes a strong claim about narrative in science. He wants to demonstrate that it can “reveal the humanity of the scientific method.” I agree with him on a number of points, but as an English professor, on key ones I must disagree.

First, although there is tension in science discovery, it is not inherent in a scientific problem. Rather, the tension troubles the researchers themselves. The case Hoffmann highlights is the riddle of how to synthesize paclitaxel, a valuable anti-tumor agent. He asks, “Does the standard scientific article tell the narrator scientist’s story or is it nature’s?” I would argue that nature has no story to tell—it does not puzzle itself or us about how to make paclitaxel. Scientists do the puzzling.

Literary narrative has a formal structure: a conflict encountered by a protagonist, a rising arc of increasing tension, a crisis peak, and a falling off, resulting in some sort of insight. These elements then invite the reader to interpret an overall theme or meaning for the story. The writer’s intended meaning, hard to determine, may be important or not.

This aspect of narrative could apply to a scientific protagonist in quest of an answer to some riddle about the natural world, except for a few key differences: This quest in science writing is not usually about the personal deficiencies of the scientist. Her lack of knowledge is not a “defect,” but a puzzle shared by all researchers. Her solution to the riddle is usually not focused on her.

Crucially, the science researcher’s best solution to the riddle is a singular answer, free of as much ambiguity as possible, and if accurate, widely accepted. Not so in literary narrative. Readers over time will find and devise many new and different meanings from the narrative. Ambiguity is a value in literature—not infinite interpretations but many related ones. Why? Because human motive, the core of literary narrative, is rarely singular.

Storytelling is a key technique in any explanation, and science writers use it all the time. To explain science to a popular audience, they often follow a scientist through his or her personal discovery process.

The arts and sciences must be in league to unriddle the world in unique and complementary ways. Hoffmann need not worry about revealing “the humanity of the scientific method.” That is not its strength, nor its value. Scientists, when they describe their discovery process, do that quite well.

Robert Louis Chianese, PhD
Northridge, CA