We live in the most information-saturated era in human history, and yet a growing number of people feel like the answers to their questions have never been farther away. We are drowning in content but starving for truth. It feels impossible to know where to turn for our information, what to believe and when to make up our minds.
And of course we have trust issues! There is little mystery surrounding the answer to the question of why. We have politicians who run on platforms promising to lower the cost of living and improve life for ordinary citizens, who then funnel billions in taxpayer money into bombing campaigns abroad, and when the press reports on the words that suddenly they are the 鈥渇ake news media". Politicians aside (because when have we ever been able to fully trust them anyways), we need not look farther than the comment section on any internet chiropractor or wellness influencer to locate the seeds of doubt towards the scientific establishment being sewn. What鈥檚 more is the people who might have held power to account; journalists, scientists, public health officials, find themselves cast as the villains in a story written by the very forces they were meant to scrutinize.
The predictable result of all of this is a population that has decided to take matters into its own hands. To cut out the middleman. To do their own research and find the capital T Truth. And here's the thing: that instinct is not wrong, inherently. Healthy skepticism of power is a civic virtue, some would even argue a duty. Productive criticism of scientific institutions has driven some of the most important advances in human knowledge. The problem is that "doing your own research" without the tools to evaluate evidence: without training in identifying bias, without an understanding of how to assess quality of evidence and most critically, without the humility to follow evidence wherever it leads rather than wherever you hoped it would, doesn't produce truth. It produces a more confidently held version of whatever you already believed.
There is a reason we shouldn't be trying to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch. Getting to where we are as a species that can (somewhat) reliably understand the world around us has been a journey human beings have been on since the beginning of time. A long, unglamorous, often ethically dubious and posthumously ridiculous one at that. Allow me to take you on part of it, by way of the history of how we came to understand the human brain. Because in my opinion, nothing illustrates what happens when we don't know anything quite like what we used to do to people's heads.
Science Didn't Just Happen
Modern science requires a staggering number of ingredients to function. You need humans of course, but specifically humans who are settled enough to form communities (we can thank the Neolithic era and the invention of farming for that). You need language, writing, art, mathematics, measurement tools, systems of understanding, a functioning scientific method, and a social system wealthy enough and willing to pay for all of it. Every single one of these things took thousands of years to develop, combined with a healthy dose of luck to bring them together in the name of innovation.
What We Got Wrong About the Brain (A Non-Exhaustive List)
Few areas of science illustrate the cost of ignorance as vividly as neuroscience, and few examples are as darkly fascinating as trepanation: the practice of carving a hole in a living person's skull. of Neolithic-era skulls show evidence of this procedure, some of them multiple times. Some skulls show bone regrowth around the opening, which means patients survived long enough for their bodies to try to heal. So why were they doing it? We don't entirely know. Some cases were quasi-medical; attempts to relieve pain from head trauma, while others appear ritualistic. And lest you assume this is purely ancient history: in 1970, British artist Amanda Feilding filmed herself drilling a hole in her own skull with an electric drill, believing it would permanently elevate her consciousness. So convinced of the merits of this procedure, she later ran for Parliament (twice) on a platform of making it available under the National Health Plan. Fielding is not alone in her convictions; a small but persistent community of advocates continues to promote trepanation today, convinced that unsealing the skull restores a kind of mental vitality lost when we grew up and our cranial bones fused shut. Their conviction, strange as it sounds, aligns with one of the longest-running misunderstandings in human history: we have almost never known what the brain actually does. Ancient Egyptians considered the heart the seat of the soul, intelligence, and memory; the brain was scooped out through the nostrils during mummification and discarded. Aristotle, widely considered one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, agreed: the heart was the organ of the mind. The brain, he thought, was basically a radiator for cooling the blood.
It wasn't until Galen (130-200 CE), who conducted vivisections (public dissections of various animals) and keenly observed decomposing human bodies he stumbled upon, that a more accurate picture of the nervous system began to emerge. And it would take another thousand years before Paul Broca, in 1861, provided the first hard evidence of functional localization in the human brain (mapping speech to a specific region) using the case of a patient nicknamed "Tan," who could only ever say that one syllable.
The ethics problem illustrated by Galen (and many, lesser-known predecessors) didn't resolve itself over the centuries. Another example that springs to mind is the foundational work of David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel in the 1960s and 70s, who together conducted a landmark series of experiments at Harvard that gave us an extraordinarily precise map of how the visual system is wired, and how the brain processes what the eyes see. The way they did it was by sewing newborn kittens' eyelids shut, thus depriving one or both eyes of visual input during the critical developmental window, and then examining what happened to the visual cortex as a result. What they found was remarkable: the brain's wiring is not fixed at birth but shaped by experience in ways that are both time-sensitive and largely irreversible. The foundations of everything we now understand about neural plasticity and critical periods in development traces back to those experiments. This work is also, by modern standards, something no ethics board would approve in a thousand years. Both things are true simultaneously, a tension that illustrates the kind of discomfort that serious engagement with scientific history tends to produce.
Wrapping it up
So, what does all of this have to do with fake news, affiliate-link riddled influencers and politicians who bomb countries while ignoring the cost-of-living crisis at home? Everything, I think.
The scientific establishment is not a monolith of objective truth handed down from high above. It is a human system built by flawed people, funded by imperfect institutions, capable of spectacular error, subject to the same pressures of power and money that distort everything else.
The cynical response to this, the one being actively sold to us by people who have a great deal to gain from our confusion, is to conclude that because scientific institutions are imperfect, they are all equally untrustworthy, and therefore your gut feeling is just as good as the evidence. That is not skepticism. Quite the opposite. It is an invitation to be manipulated by whoever tells the most compelling story, unchecked by any standard of proof whatsoever.
In contrast, the healthy response is exactly what the pattern of history suggests: rigorous criticism, better methodology, more transparency, and the kind of relentless self-correction that turned trepanation into neurosurgery and humoural theory into modern medicine.
The next time someone tells you to do your own research, I'd encourage you to take them up on it. Really do it. Learn what a primary source looks like. Understand the difference between a preprint and a peer-reviewed study. Find out who funded the research and whether that funding creates a conflict of interest. Sit with the discomfort of not knowing, rather than reaching for the nearest answer that confirms what you already believed. Do what scientists have been painfully, slowly learning to do for thousands of years.
Sophie Tseng Pellar is a Masters Student in the Surgical and Interventional Sciences program at 91丝瓜视频. Her research interests include exercise physiology, biomechanics and sports nutrition.
Part of the OSS mandate is to foster science communication and critical thinking in our students and the public. We hope you enjoy these pieces from our Student Contributors and welcome any feedback you may have!
