Viewpoint: Blind optimism — Cynicism plays an important role in science but it won’t help us solve the world’s most crushing problems

Credit: DrAfter123/Getty Images
Credit: DrAfter123/Getty Images

Pessimism sounds smart. Optimism sounds dumb. It’s no wonder, then, that pessimistic messages hit the headlines, and optimistic ones hardly get a middle-page snippet. It’s why doomsday thinkers get respect and accolades. They’re the smart ones that can see what the rest of us can’t. They’re the ones that speak truth to power.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

One reason that admitting I’m an optimist feels like unearthing a dark secret is that it seems like it goes against years of scientific training. Pessimism is often regarded as an essential feature of a scientist: the basis of science is to challenge every result, to pick theories apart to see which ones stand the test of time. I thought that cynicism was one of its founding principles.

Maybe that is partly true. But science is undeniably optimistic, too. How else would we explain the willingness to try experiments over and over, with slim odds of success?

Scientific progress can be painfully slow: the best minds can dedicate their entire lives to a single question and end up with nothing to show for it. They do so with the hope that they might be on the cusp of a breakthrough. It’s unlikely that they will be the person to discover it, but there’s a chance. Those odds drop to zero if they give up.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here. 

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-10-01-at-10.52.08-AM
Non-browning CRISPR gene-edited bananas move one step closer to British markets
Screenshot-2026-09-22-at-10.54.12-AM
‘They misunderstand science’: Research attempting to tie autism to changes in the gut microbiome comes under fire
AI-Force-Leadership-Portrait
Jay Clayton controversy: The divisive history of Trump’s newly-appointed AI czar
Screenshot-2026-09-28-at-11.26.17-AM
Viewpoint: Wellness movement activists reposition nicotine from a killer addictive drug into a cure-all for brain ills
strand of dna genetics
No, GMO foods do not “damage genes, natural disposition and hormones, or decrease physical health and intelligence”
Radioactive-Americana-Collage-2
The kooky logic behind the raft of spurious cancer claims from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-8.56.38-AM
Trump finalizes Medicare drug price cuts, drawing Big Pharma’s fury and a legal challenge
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-21-2026-11_21_39-AM
Viewpoint: Food cults: Online ‘nutrition communities’ can pose unique dangers
Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-9.11.36-AM
The genetics of personality
Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-11.12.24-AM
‘Why do we keep falling for this stuff?’ America’s love affair with snake oil salesmen and scams
Screenshot 2026-10-01 at 12.30
Combating ‘narrative distortion’: Will pharma companies step up to challenge health misinformation?
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.