Dr. Barry Sears
I hope no one minds me submitting this. There has been a lot of
discussion of Dr. Barry Sears and he takes lots of unfair potshots as
many sincere researchers do, including Dr. D’Adamo. I think this piece
will give you a look into Dr. Sears’ heart in his research. It is a
column he writes himself. Thanks, Tom
Why vs. How, by Dr. Barry Sears
Last week I received the Alumni of the Year by Occidential College, a
small liberal arts college in Los Angeles often referred to as the
Princeton of the West Coast. Needless to say, I was exceptionally
honored by this award. So I decided to reproduce my speech because it
gives some insight into the beginnings of the Zone some 20 years ago,
and also my view on the bigger philosophical questions we should always
be asking.
“When I first heard that I was to be honored as the Alumni of Year, my
reaction was that of extreme humility because I asked myself, “why me?”
After all, there were thousands of Oxy graduates who have been extremely
successful over the years. So I wondered what lessons from my own life
might provide some insights about success, which might be useful to
those in the audience today?
I first really started thinking about what constitutes success several
years ago when I was asked to give talk to a small group of Oxy
students. I told them that the real measure of success is ultimately
based on whether you have made the world a better place when you leave
it than when you first arrived. Because if you haven’t achieved that
fundamental goal, then all of material trappings usually associated with
success are not that meaningful.
Obviously success comes from setting a goal, and then achieving it. What
that goal might be, however, is often based on the difference of two
three-letter words: One word is “how” and the other is “why”.
The “how” pathway to success is fairly straightforward. How to get job,
how to build successful career, how to achieve material wealth and
status. The “why” pathway to success is far more difficult because it
requires thinking like a philosopher. Philosophers not only ask
questions of why the world works the way it does, but also how to change
it in ways that may not seem obvious to others. That creates some real
risks because no one wants the potential of personal rejection and
ridicule by trying to change the status quo.
Some 20 years ago I was very comfortable following the “how” pathway. I
was a respected scientist at MIT developing an international reputation
in cancer drug delivery systems. I was spending several of hours a day
in the lab, playing some basketball every day at noon, and hanging out
at the faculty club after work. It was a pretty cushy life. All I had to
do was just keep following the “how” pathway, and not rock too many
boats in the process. Then I caught the philosopher’s bug by asking a
very basic “why” question. In my case it was, “why do we become
chronically ill?” Asking that one question caused me to change my life
forever.
I reasoned that if you treated food as if it were a drug, you could
manipulate certain key hormones in the body, and keep them within
specified zones that were not too high, nor too low. And by doing so,
you would cut the Gordian Knot of chronic illness. If I was successful,
then that concept could change the course of medicine on a worldwide
basis. Obviously, big “why” questions also generate equally big hopes. I
bet the farm that I was right, quit my job at MIT, started my own
company, and began my new career as a philosopher of medical science.
Then reality quickly set in. Within a short period of time, I went from
being considered a highly respected scientist to a charlatan snake-oil
salesman. During those many dark years, I relied on the insight of the
German philosopher Schoenpauer who said all truth goes through three
stages. The first stage is ridicule. The second stage is violent
reaction. And the third stage is that it becomes self-evident.
The ridicule phase for me lasted some 13 years before I wrote my first
book, The Zone, in 1995. With the publication of that book started the
violent reaction phase that lasted another 5 years. It is only now after
being exiled to the scientific wilderness some 18 years ago, that some
of my old colleagues at Harvard and MIT are beginning to grudgingly
acknowledge that I might be right after all.
Looking back, I realize the qualities that allowed me to view the world
from the perspective of a philosopher started with my Oxy education. I
came to Oxy for one reason: to play basketball. But the two most
important things I learned at Oxy were how to think critically and how
to communicate. It took many years to hone those skills after I
graduated, but if your goal is to take the “why” pathway, those are the
skills you must have to achieve success.
My take-home advice is don’t be afraid to take the risk if you have
faith in your beliefs. You don’t have to bet the farm like I did, but
you have to be willing to take significant time away from following the
“how” pathway in order to spend more time thinking like a philosopher
with very little guarantee of success, but with a very high potential
for personal ridicule and violent reaction. And if you choose the “why”
pathway, then your Oxy education gives you the basic tools. You have to
decide whether or not you are going to use them wisely to answer those
tough questions on why the world works the way it does, and what you can
do to change it. Believe me, it’s well worth the effort.”
Dr. Barry Sears