In recent online discussions, several readers raised thoughtful questions about what defines a scientist and what truly qualifies as science. The conversation touched on topics such as bioelectrochemistry, molecular biology, virology, and the role of chemistry in understanding living systems. The discussion revealed a recurring confusion — that biology and medicine are often mistaken for sciences, when in fact they depend entirely on the principles of chemistry and physics.
Defining a Scientist
A scientist is one who studies physics, chemistry, and mathematics in depth — the foundational disciplines that explain nature and its operations. These subjects deal with matter, energy, and the laws that govern their behavior. Only through such rigorous and quantitative understanding can one explore the workings of nature in a truly scientific way.
By contrast, individuals who specialize in applied or professional areas — such as medicine, engineering, economics, or psychology — are experts in their respective fields, not scientists. Their work deserves respect and recognition, but it rests on the application of established science rather than on the discovery of new natural laws.
Unfortunately, in modern times, this distinction has been blurred. Many professionals, particularly in medicine and the health sciences, have begun calling themselves “scientists” or “researchers.” The title is now often used to claim prestige, authority, and, at times, financial or institutional privilege. This misuse of the term has diluted its meaning and confused the public about what science truly represents.
A scientist seeks truth — or more precisely, the workings of observable reality — through observation, measurement, and validation, not through authority, consensus, or belief. Others may engage in valuable professional work, but science itself remains the pursuit of understanding nature through the languages of physics, chemistry, and mathematics — nothing more, and nothing less.
Misclassification in Science – The “Bio” Illusion
This misunderstanding is clearly reflected in the growing trend of attaching the prefix “bio–” to scientific terms — for example, bioelectrochemistry — as if doing so creates a new branch of science. In reality, such terminology has largely emerged from medical and biological circles, attempting to give biology the appearance of being a true science. Yet biology, by nature, is descriptive, limited to observing and classifying living systems. Chemistry, in contrast, is explanatory — it uncovers mechanisms, quantifies change, and tests reproducibility. The moment electrochemical principles are applied to biological systems, the work remains chemistry, not biology. The prefix “bio–” adds context, not scientific validity.
The most misleading and damaging of these modern inventions is molecular biology. In reality, it represents perhaps one of the greatest distortions in the history of science. By incorporating the word “molecular” into biology and conducting laboratory work that mimics chemistry, practitioners have labeled themselves as “scientists.” This is deceptive. They use chemical formulas, molecular diagrams, and even chemistry instruments to create the illusion of scientific depth — yet they often lack the necessary chemical education and understanding to interpret what they are doing.
The result is widespread confusion and false authority. A striking example lies in virology. How can one claim to be studying viruses, their DNA or RNA, or so-called “spike proteins,” without ever possessing an isolated and purified virus sample? Such claims fall outside the realm of science. They belong to assumption, not to chemistry or physics.
This artificial rebranding serves one purpose: to align biological and medical work with the prestige of science, thereby attracting vast funding and institutional influence. But without chemistry as the foundation, such efforts collapse under scrutiny. Real science demands isolation, measurement, reproducibility, and validation — none of which can exist without chemically defined systems.
Therefore, if one works in chemistry — even in areas such as electrochemistry applied to biological systems — and does so with originality, rigor, and understanding, then one truly deserves to be called a scientist. Such work represents genuine science. But it should never be diluted with non-scientific jargon or misleading prefixes meant to borrow legitimacy.
Chemistry vs. Biology in Medicine
This confusion extends deeply into modern medicine. Many assume that chemistry operates only outside the body, while biology governs what happens within. That assumption is incorrect. Biology, by its nature, ends at the level of observation — describing cells, tissues, or organisms. But once one examines what occurs inside these systems — molecular transport, enzymatic reactions, or energy transfer — the processes are purely chemical.
Transport of substances across cell membranes, the breakdown of cell walls, and intracellular signaling all follow the same chemical laws that govern reactions outside living organisms. Thus, biology can describe what happens; chemistry explains why it happens. Without chemistry, biology is like a map without coordinates — it shows the terrain but not the forces that shape it.
This distinction becomes critical when evaluating clinical trials and modern drug development. Clinical trials are observational tools, not scientific investigations in the strict sense. Their results are influenced by countless biological and personal variables that cannot be fully controlled or reproduced. Observing that a medicine lowers cholesterol, for example, is not science; it is observation. To understand why and how it happens requires chemistry — studying molecular interactions at the subcellular level under controlled and measurable conditions.
Modern drug development, driven largely by trial outcomes, has therefore become patchwork rather than science. It measures selected biological markers and attempts to restore them to arbitrarily defined “normal” levels, assuming causality. In doing so, it often ignores the underlying chemical mechanisms that truly govern the body’s function. The result is frequent unintended side effects — a defining feature of much of today’s medical practice.
True drug development must begin with chemistry: understanding the molecule, its structure, its reactivity, and its interaction with cellular components. Only after these foundations are established should studies proceed gradually — from tissues, to animals, and finally to humans. That is how real science progresses: from the molecular foundation upward, not from statistical observation downward with guesses or speculations.
Conclusion
The crisis in modern science is not one of technology or funding — it is a crisis of definition. The word science has been borrowed, stretched, and misused by professions that rely more on observation and authority than on fundamental understanding.
Restoring the integrity of science requires returning to its roots — physics, chemistry, and mathematics — the only disciplines that reveal the true workings of nature. Only then can humanity clearly separate knowledge from imitation, science from appearance, and truth from belief.