Doing science means doing politics - publishing, presentations, conferences, and tenure is all just a very slow and complicated way of finding consensus. It's i

Doing science means doing politics - publishing, presentations, conferences, and tenure is all just a very slow and complicated way of finding consensus. It's inevitable at some point in a scientist's career that they run up against some controversy where it's not just "data and facts wins", but it's about relationships, leverage, negotiation, social clout, etc. I've settled on a theory that the bulk of science that lives hidden in lab journal notebooks and dropbox files is stuff that's not too controversial or heretical, but that the investigator is too scared to share. There's an anxiety about wondering and making sure that it's good enough to pass peer muster. So then most stuff never gets shared, particularly negative results. The best scientists are ones who managed to break through that social fear barrier, either by building up enough social power for themselves to withstand potential attacks, or navigating the awkward political risks and activism required to push a field forward. You can tell when someone lacks that aura by how worried they are about funding, because ultimately they haven't yet mastered being a politician. The good ones have enough charisma and confidence that they could run for office. At least most of the good professors and mentors I know have that spirit, but likely in spite of the academic system selecting for nails that don't stick out rather than because of.