‘A good scientist thinks in terms of the bigger picture’ Karin Jongsma, Young Academy

Nederlands

As a fresh member of the Young Academy, bioethicist Karin Jongsma of UMC Utrecht says she wants to further deepen the discussion on Recognition & Rewards. She seizes the opportunity to add her own perspective, namely the question: what makes a good scientist? She elaborates on this in an interview.

Karin Jongsma - photo by Fabian Landewee

Great to hear that Recognition & Rewards will remain high on the agenda at the Young Academy in the coming years! In what way do you draw on your background in bioethics when considering the cultural change programme?

‘I do that irrevocably, of course, out of professional habits (laughs). My research focuses on the ethics of new technologies, specifically what those new technologies do to people. How do they change work, knowledge and behaviour, but also ‘how does technology change people’. That is precisely one of the questions that ‘Recognition & Rewards’ raised for me: who is the scientist as a person? What makes a good scientist? Do we look closely enough at the person behind the scientist, behind the output? What I find really great about the Recognise & Rewards programme is that we look beyond a very select set of quantitative metrics. But we still pay relatively little attention to the person themselves.’

How do you do that, approaching scientists as human beings?

‘Good point; it immediately recalls all sorts of complications. I think there’s a risk that you create scope for comments like “I don’t find you very likeable or pleasant” – these are precisely the kinds of things we shouldn’t be allowing. For me, the question of the person as a scientist is about things like: are you a good colleague, are you creative, are you also willing to do things that are important for the bigger picture and not just directly for your own career? Recognition & Rewards has created space and attention for this, but I think we could be more explicit about it. One of the things that plays a role for me is that the tasks for the greater good tend to fall to female colleagues more often than to male ones. I’m an optimist by nature, so I’ll just assume this isn’t purely down to sexism, but apparently, we do ask female scientists more readily and more often to think from the perspective of the whole. I think that if we look through the lens of ‘what makes a good scientist’, we’ll answer the question of how we allocate tasks in a different way. Perhaps we’ll then actually feel it’s a shame for male scientists that they have fewer opportunities to develop that broader perspective.

In your view, what is the underlying factor that continues to make work for the greater good less popular than individual achievements?

‘Recognition & Rewards is widely embraced, but they are not yet part of everyone’s daily practice. I cannot speak for everyone, but I notice, for example, that old-fashioned output measures still regularly come into play. At the same time, I think everyone has some idea of what constitutes a good scientist. I would like to explore the question of ‘what makes a good scientist’ in more depth through a public dialogue, and whether there are differences, for example, between faculties, universities, and between men and women.’

You’re a first-generation scientist. What has surprised or amazed you about the system in which you’re developing your career?

‘I often feel a sense of wonder. I’ve regularly asked myself, “why are we doing this” or “why is this valuable”? In my field, for example, there is an enormous amount of publishing, including on AI. It’s impossible to keep up with it all. I would venture to say that some of those studies aren’t of particularly high quality. But: it pays to be published on AI right now. There are plenty of grants available, it’s relatively easy to publish on the subject, and it helps people advance their careers. That’s, of course, a legitimate goal to pursue your academic work, but then again; who’s actually going to read all that?
Another example is that keynote presentations are valued more highly than, say, a presentation at a patients’ association. I find that rather strange; how can you make such a generalization, when to me it seems to depend very much on the aim of your research.
In a way, I'm part of it too, of course – the rat race of publications, grants and presentations – and I'm sometimes disappointed that I don't do things radically differently myself. My view is that you won't get anywhere within a system if you're simply ‘against’ it. You can't change the world on your own. At the same time, in my state of wonder, I also see a lot of positive things. I’ve found that there’s plenty of room for curiosity and creativity in scientific research, education and meetings. And I’ve found that asking ‘why are you actually doing that?’ very often leads to interesting conversations.’

Personally, I sometimes find it remarkable how a detached view of society outside the walls of academia is at odds with scientific curiosity.

‘One of the topics I’m very interested in is disagreement. You’d actually expect that, as a scientist, you’d be intrigued by the idea of ‘disagreeing’. But what often happens is that we want to convince others. Disagreement so beautifully illustrates that there can be different perspectives on data, an event, or an experience. You could see that as valuable. I’d like to explore the question further: how can we embrace disagreement more fully? But that’s somewhat separate from Recognition & Rewards.’

Unless you view this as part of academic culture and as an element that can enhance the quality of scientific work.

‘Yes, that’s quite right.’

What are your hopes for the future of Recognition & Rewards?

‘I find that a tough question; any answer pales in comparison to the complex problems that the world is facing right now. Having said that, I can say that I hope there will be room for a bit more playfulness. I think many people are mainly focused on keeping their heads above water, given everything that’s expected of us and the ambitions we have. In the midst of that overwhelming process, we simply forget that tinkering around with concepts and ideas is an important part of our work. We make very little room for that. I think it’s incredibly valuable to be able to look at things with a bit of playfulness. This is a valuable skill, because it is instrumental in improving your work. It leads to innovative ideas and is linked to creativity. Just playing around a bit – I can’t remember the last time I did that in science.

Playfulness could also be a virtue of a good scientist. That’s my own view and perspective; I’d like to test that. How do other scientists and other faculties see this?’