Controversy in science

Had this email exchange with my pops yesterday:

From: Pops
To: me
Subject: another controversy
You don’t want to be part of:

Indeed, he declared war on molecular biology, seeing it as evolutionary
biology’s Scylla. The Charybdis was the Modern Synthesis, which hedescribed as “the private domain of a quasi-scientific movement, whosecreted it away in a morass of petty scholasticism” [3].

From: me
To: Pops
Subject: Re: another controversy
'liberating biology from the Procrustean bed of dogma on which it has been cast for so long,'
I'm not sure what a 'Procrustean bed of dogma' is, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to be there.
me

 This was regarding this article: 

How the Microbial World Saved Evolution from the Scylla of Molecular Biology and the Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis

doi: 10.1128/​MMBR.00002-09

Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. March 2009 vol. 73 no. 1 14-21

I'm really not sure if this type of article is the zenith or nadir of a scientific career, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to be on the receiving end of this article. 

**

Scientific controversies are really interesting to me. At one level, I think it's exciting to be at the cutting edge of a field where there is the chance to be controversial. At another level, it's probably really hard to fight against dogma. And then, everyone says "oh science isn't personal", yadda yadda yadda, but you know what? Sometimes I think that's a bunch of bull. Yeah it's not personal, but if you've put all your time and energy into developing an idea and someone publishes something against your idea, then of course it's personal. (Except it's not.. I dunno. It's a fine line. Work-life balance, and all that.)

My dad is in a cool controversy (from his perspective, because he thinks he's right) about...oh gosh I'll butcher it...number of proteins at the kinetochore? *ducks*. My PI has forever been defending GWAS in the GWAS vs candidate gene/sequencing camp. Somewhat recently there's been some controversy regarding the claims made by the ENCODE project. It's interesting because some of these are more or less just matters of semantics. Some are less about the real science, and more about competition for funding and publishing in high profile journals. Some are actually about the science. 

**

I really think my dad is one of my personal heroes, despite the fact that we didn't get along all throughout my middle and high school years. He said that his graduate adviser told him something along the lines of this:

You can disagree with a conclusion, with a method, with a whatever, but you can't argue with the data. Because it's all about the data. And nature doesn't lie.

Nature doesn't really do us that many favors though either, so, there's that. 

(I double-checked what pops's grad adviser actually said about the data vs conclusion thing, and got this email back:)

From: Pops
To: me
Subject: Re: hey what's that thing 

Yep, exactly. So if you’re writing a paper, you should cite the author’s data positively, rather than citing their conclusion in a negative way

It's a pretty good way to go about life too, if you think about it.