Sometimes It Really Is That Simple
Good research scientists need to have a firm relationship with the truth, because the incentives to lie, exaggerate, fudge, and dissemble are huge. There are really no guardrails.
Ok, ok, I give up. I did not want to weigh in on Andrew Huberman. I don’t listen to his podcast or even know much about him. In fact, I do not care a fig about Andrew Huberman one way or the other. However, the irritating? misguided? beside-the-pointedness? of the conversations about a recent piece on Mr. Huberman in The Cut—conversations happening widely on X and on my favorite podcasts (yes, even Blocked & Reported!) and in my personal life has driven me to it. So here goes.
If you were fortunate enough to miss those conversations, the oft-repeated views that have driven me to this post go like this: What the piece in The Cut shows is he is a “bad boyfriend” a “cad”, a “player” and that the multiple women to whom he has been serially and concomitantly lying for years, and whom he has been pretending to love and be faithful to, are dupes and fools who should have known better. Also, the fact that more people are defending him than trying to destroy his life means that “MeToo is over”. Also, none of this matters because he is a podcaster and podcasters don’t have to be faithful boyfriends. In fact, this behavior increases his appeal because something-something. I didn’t understand that last one so I can’t remember it.
The above assertions may all be true. And I agree, Mr. Huberman’s sex/romantic life and even the fact that he is apparently—according to the article--a pathological liar (and not just someone who has strayed/cheated here and there on a partner) are irrelevant if your career and reputation is that of a podcaster. It may be true that none of those qualities are disqualifying for being an interesting podcaster, or an artist, or for many other careers. Circus clown? Woodworker? Computer repairer? Dancer? Writer? Lie to your heart’s content—you may still be excellent in your field.
But if you go to the link above, which goes to the Huberman Lab (and, yes, he has the word “lab” in all his materials, including in the name of his podcast) his entire career derives from the fact that he is a research scientist. Here is the first paragraph of his About page, and the entire rest of the page describes his scientific credentials:
“Andrew Huberman, Ph.D., is a neuroscientist and tenured professor in the department of neurobiology, and by courtesy, psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford School of Medicine. He has made numerous significant contributions to the fields of brain development, brain function and neural plasticity, which is the ability of our nervous system to rewire and learn new behaviors, skills and cognitive functioning.”
Herein lies my problem. Good research scientists need to have a firm relationship with the truth, because the incentives to lie, exaggerate, fudge, and dissemble are huge. There are really no guardrails, practically speaking. The whole enterprise is more or less on the honor system. There are not enough time, resources, or paid humans in the world to effectively monitor millions of scientists’ results, statements, and data analyses. We all saw the CDC’s behavior (ok, lies) during the pandemic, and the untruthful statements people like Dr. Walensky made were due to the very strong incentives to be untruthful about vaccine efficacy, or potential side effects, particularly for young men, or the effectiveness of masking. They wanted people to get vaccinated, wear a mask, etc. so, in the minds of a range of CDC bureaucrats, it was ok to stretch the truth. It is hard to be honest when there are so many push factors not to be. It takes a special kind of person not to give in to these, and I believe that top notch research scientists have an inner lodestone that keeps them honest in the face of temptations not to be.
I am gobsmacked to hear the very same people who have said for two years that they will never believe another statement issued by the CDC because of Covid untruths now defend Huberman’s behavior as completely irrelevant to his enterprise, an enterprise built on his credentials as a research scientist.
Of course, I have no evidence that there is anything amiss with Huberman’s scientific work, or his publications. I am not accusing him of anything. However, I am extremely skeptical that anyone whose entire personal life is riddled with lies is honest in their scientific work. I have come to believe that there are few people roaming the earth who are scrupulously honest in one area of life, and extremely dishonest in a different area. Is it possible that he is an exception to this highly consistent pattern? Yes. Is it likely? No.
After thirty years of working with scientists, and I have worked closely with multiple hundreds of them, many who are
top researchers in their fields, I can say that something they have in common is that they are sticklers for accuracy; they care deeply about getting to a scientific truth; they know if they made it all up, it would take a long time before anyone realized and, still, they do not make it all up. They go back to the lab until they get it right because “something is bothering them” about a result that doesn’t quite add up. They publish results of experiments that prove them wrong. I don’t know whether they are thoughtful spouses, or put their dishes in the dishwasher, or tip well. But I do know, at least as far as I can tell, that they really, truly
care about getting to a scientific truth. It is both the how and the why of getting there in the first place.
It pains me to see people I respect overcomplicate the question of whether being truthful is important. It is. If you don’t know that, in my book, you aren’t a good scientist. You just play one on tv- or on your podcast.
Great analysis. Beautifully written, too. Made me think.
Yes. "How you do anything is how you do everything." When we look deep enough and long enough, this statement accurately describes most people.