Binoya, Shawn C. | Research 11 | Reflection: On being a Scientist | Ms.

Jaro Sarmago

Aside from fairytales and fantasy, the type of films I love to watch are the ones that
trigger mini introspective moments in myself. I didn’t expect this movie to have that
effect on me because it seemed more science-y than it was introspection-triggering on
my first look. I find the lines of Nicolas Ponter really interesting. I repeated the scene
where he was having dinner with his daughter several times just to have it digested. It
showed how brilliant he was as a person, but also how insensitive he can get. It implied
to me how scientists have this sense of superiority over other scientists specialising in
other sciences. Also, it kind of suggested research can be both taken as a true passion
to help the society like how Ponter seemed to have when he was talking to his students,
and as a personal means of getting through something, like how Rebecca used it.

The plot was mainly revolving about Pierre Descartin trying to have recognition on his
contribution to their research with Ponter, and all the complications and conflicts in
between. Although, it should not apply to all, the movie assumed and emphasized,
almost to the extremes how the personal interests of the characters can affect research.
It suggested and showed the rather dirty side in the field of research, concerning
especially in the personal interests of the researchers: Ponter was proud of the team he
built and the result of their hard work with him as a team leader that he was convinced
he deserved the recognition all to himself; Descartin, although an important part of
Ponter’s team might have not been aware of what he signed up for: he demanded for
recognition when it appeared that he knew he was only the biggest of the small parts of
Ponter’s team; Ponter’s daughter, hurt because her very dad is one of the people who
looked down on the type of research she’s into and who also happened to be seeing her
friend Rebecca; and Rebecca a brilliant woman who used research and hooked up with
all the old guys just to get her degree early. All are possible in real life. The writers
exaggerated and tried to fit all of these into 56 minutes. But it’s a movie, after all.

In terms of ethical principles violated, the movie had a lot. Ponter might not have had a
proper discussion with Descartin in terms of what Descartin wanted; Descartin acquired
illegal evidence and attempted to expose Ponter; Rebecca had intimate relationships
with both Ponter and Descartin; Ponter’s daughter might be the only one who was in
between and squeezed with professional and personal issues when she was looked
down on by her dad, and when she realised her dad was more proud of Rebecca than
his own daughter.

On Ponter’s side, I think he should start talking and clarifying to Descartin instead of just
shooing him away because Descartin should understand why Ponter thinks that way
and of the legal and ethical grounds why he can claim it all for himself, if ever Ponter
won’t budge (which he did at the end of the movie, although more symbolic than
formal). Rebecca should also start acknowledging her full potential given that she’s
brilliant, instead of clinging on to Ponter and Descartin and seeing them as “ladders to
success” that she didn’t even need.
I really liked the movie. Its approach was more effective. It was not like the ones that
tells you what to do, it was one that shows you what not to do and how those things
make your life even more complicated if you do those. A cautionary tale of some sort. I
have learned to stay away from things that are already defined by ethical and legal rules
to be deleterious to research and to the self, and how these rules are important to keep
complications and problems at bay and contained. It also changed my thinking that
being a scientist kills the artist in a person. Ponter’s mind was a brush, with science as
its pigment and he painted pictures that made me want to have the good characteristics
he has.