Storytelling in Biochemistry

Foreword

In the field of biochemistry, academic papers or posters are the main mediums we use to communicate among specialists.  Occasionally, a scientist may convene a conference to share an important discovery.  On each poster or embedded in each paper, the calculated numbers tell the story of a nondescript molecule reacting with another, which isn’t the type of fairy tale you would tell your kids at bedtime.  The more effective use of stories are anecdotes from our past that inspire our future decisions.  My freshman year, I was a little annoyed to learn about earlier scientists like Niels Bohr, J.J. Thomson and John Dalton when all I would need to know in the future are the equations.  As I learned about these scientists, I realized that each had defied common thought of the time.  It was the common thread that linked all of their work.  This next true story shows how as scientist we need to accept change as it is discovered.

Story

As most scientifically minded men in the mid-19^th century, Ignaz Semmelweis was a combination of a doctor, chemist, physicist and biologist.  At one clinic, he found that a great percentage of women died of childbed fever after childbirth while other clinics had substantially less deaths due to this illness.  After comparing the clinics, he found the only difference was that the physicians in the other clinics washed their hands before delivering babies.  He insisted that his clinic adopt this practice and, despite professional grumblings, the mortality rate drastically decreased.  When he shared this discovery with the medical world, despite the evidence he had, they rejected his notions. 

Analysis

From this story, we learn that even when discoveries are made there can be a gap between scientific proof and widespread adoption and application of the new science.  Using this in a scientific setting can show scientist that we should at least consider new advances even when they contradict popular opinion.

Retelling the Story

At the news of his new ‘discovery’ the scientists around the room laughed.  “This is ridiculous”, “Absurd”, “No one will believe you, Ignaz”, they mocked.  And indeed, no one did.  Although Ignaz Semmelweis had caused a 90% drop in mother mortality in his small Hungarian clinic, creating one of the most successful clinics in that country, he would be ridiculed for this one practice.  His discovery: doctors who wash their hands lead to less patient sickness.  Beginning his employment in the small clinic, Semmelweis observed that doctors who washed their hands at another clinic had only a 4% mortality rate of mothers who had just given birth.  His clinic, which didn’t wash their hands, had a 10% mother mortality rate.  Today, that would mean that one out of every ten of your wives and daughters die in childbirth!  After insisting that his fellow doctors wash their hands, the rate of death decreased by 90%.  However, after showing his numerical evidence to the medical community, he was rejected as a quack.  How many lives could have been saved if the whole medical world had adopted this practice?  We will also reject new scientific discoveries that will save lives and increase the standard of living?

In this example, I started from the end of the story to initially interest the audience.  I also included actual percentages for those scientific friends who are listening.  I also tried to make it more personal by asking my audience to imagine their family members in a dirty 19^th century clinic.  Hopefully, after those final questions, other scientist will accept the new, counterintuitive discovery I am about to present.