Observations on Biology (Biology TODAY‪)‬

Biology is often referred to as an observational science almost as a slur, with the implication that biologists simply look at the living world without the strong theoretical and mathematic underpinnings of a science like physics. There is the suggestion that observation is easy. Thus biology is viewed as a lightweight science--anyone can do it: just go out and start looking, at birds, at grass, at cells under the microscope. Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy of learning tasks puts observation at the lowest level, with recall of information (http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/ hndouts/bloom.html). This denigration of observation has long bothered me because I see it as often difficult and complex, a skill that needs to be learned and a talent that is much more developed in some. Barbara McClintock, for example, was a master of observation (Keller, 1983). All her great discoveries, from the behavior of chromosomes in corn to the transposition of genes, were the result of close observation, both of intact organisms and of their cells. George Beadle asked her to visit his lab in California because he was stuck in trying to figure out the behavior of chromosomes in the mold Neurospora. Within a couple of weeks, McClintock solved the puzzle, but only after hours of close observation. However, this isn't the entire story. Nathaniel Comfort (2001) describes how she took a break from her work, went for a walk, and sat down to think about what she had been seeing. That's when the solution came to her. So this is a story about careful observation and deep thinking, which brings me to the argument I want to present here: that observation is not to be belittled, that it is a complex process and can involve profound depths of thought.