Hossein Jorjani
First publication: 2026 – 07 – 08
One of the defining characteristics of successful scientific communities is not the absence of disagreement but the manner in which disagreement is conducted.
Scientific knowledge advances through criticism. Hypotheses are questioned, assumptions challenged, methods scrutinized, and conclusions re-examined. Vigorous intellectual disagreement is therefore not an obstacle to scientific progress but one of its essential conditions. Yet criticism can serve this function only when it is accompanied by a culture of mutual respect.
I became aware of this distinction during my first months in Edinburgh. In the autumn of 1986, shortly after arriving at the Institute of Animal Genetics in the King’s Buildings, I attended a seminar given by Alan Robertson, already one of the world’s leading quantitative geneticists. His lecture concerned the evolutionary role of sexual reproduction.
During the discussion, a young scientist seated a few rows ahead of me began by asking questions of clarification. Gradually, however, his comments became increasingly critical. Eventually he openly challenged several of Robertson’s arguments and even introduced a measure of irony into the exchange.
As a newcomer, I found the scene almost shocking. I remember wondering how such a young researcher could address a scientist of Robertson’s stature in this manner.
Robertson himself, however, appeared entirely untroubled. He answered every objection calmly and carefully, without irritation or defensiveness. When the seminar ended, the two men shook hands, exchanged a few words, and, together with several colleagues, walked to a nearby pub to continue the conversation.
Only then did I understand that I had witnessed something more important than a scientific debate. Intellectual disagreement had not been interpreted as personal hostility. Respect had not required deference, nor had criticism implied disrespect. The shared commitment to understanding the problem outweighed differences between the participants. Scientific knowledge is often described in terms of theories, experiments, and discoveries. Equally important, however, are the social norms that make open criticism possible. A community capable of separating disagreement from personal antagonism creates conditions under which ideas can be challenged without threatening the mutual respect on which collaborative inquiry ultimately depends.
Hossein Jorjani 