To participate in scientific discovery, I feel I must first admit that there is much that I don't know. When I identify a question on a topic of interest, my first step is much like that of other scientists — I mine the relevant reviews to learn general trends and accepted theories, which in turn lead me to the available primary data. I recognize that the reviews and studies are generally considered trustworthy and reliable. Yet I realize even as I read them that they may include a data point, a conclusion or a finding that, along with my own assumption, could actually be fallacious, even though I've accepted it as factual. I just can't know for sure.

Then there are my own data, the results of which may be artefacts or inaccuracies deriving from experimental error. Even if I achieve the same result three separate times, I hesitate to admit it's valid. Again, I don't know for sure.

Correspondence with colleagues can help. In the course of congenial debates, we seek the limits of our viewpoints and eliminate those that contradict factual evidence. We often reach superior conclusions merely by accepting the limits of our knowledge.

Thomas Huxley, a nineteenth-century biologist, counselled discarding that “which [is] not demonstrated or demonstrable”. This credo has become the foundation of my scientific and personal lives, as I constantly seek to reject contradictory, biased or unfounded beliefs.

Before I delved into lab-based scientific enquiry, I found myself much more likely to believe without hard evidence. Being a scientist has taught me to be a more critical and humble thinker — and to be comfortable with the unknown.